tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35758047921265369752024-03-13T06:51:45.602-07:00Sowell's Law BlogLegal Matters of Engineers, Climate Change, Environmental, Energy, and Regulatory. Also discusses updates on Construction Law, primarily environmental issues in construction. Discusses technical expert witnesses. Discusses renewable energy issues, with emphasis on wind, solar, geothermal. Discusses the disadvantages of nuclear power.Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.comBlogger483125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-67791494173816747082019-10-21T07:56:00.000-07:002019-10-21T12:30:34.736-07:00Climate Solutions BS in Houston by AIChE<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Still BS - Bad Science, No Solutions Needed</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I attended a lunch presentation by Dr. Tom Rehm, 2019 Chair of STS-AIChE on October 18, 2019 on Climate Solutions, in LaPorte, Texas. (STS is South Texas Section)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The main points are below in bold font, with my comments in parentheses. These are based on my notes made at the time, and may not perfectly reflect what was said; any inaccuracies are due to what I believe I heard at the time. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(<b>Preface</b>: I believe that Tom Rehm is sincere in his beliefs about catastrophic, imminent global warming caused by CO2, however he has stated in public that even if it is not true, it is prudent to do something to prevent it. (my paraphrase, probably not his exact words). I suspect he is also sincere in his belief that nuclear power is the planet's saviour, and that all plastic production must end and rather soon. It is disconcerting that the STS of AIChE has taken this approach, with those beliefs based on very bad science and not on the facts. However, the chairmanship is for only one year, and Dr. Rehm will soon hand over the chair - January 1, 2010. It seems, though, that the incoming Chair has similar views. That is actually ok, though, since the solutions being advanced are not workable, will have outrageous impacts on all of society, require massive government support, and cannot be implemented in less than 5 decades anyway. By then, the inevitable global cooling will be advanced and more than evident to everyone. -- End Preface) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The main points:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>UHI, urban heat island effect, is due to aerosols</b> that cooled the air until approximately 1980, then cleaner air caused the cities to warm. Clean air laws were enacted. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(That is nice to see the effect of man-made aerosols mentioned, as that is one of the several causes of warmer temperatures that have nothing to do with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. SLB has articles on the non-CO2 causes of warming, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html">see link</a>. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Population decreased in a few urban areas but temperatures increased, therefore warming is not correlated to population growth.</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(This is an attempt to show that increased temperatures are not related to population growth, however I have asked Tom in the past how does he know the temperature increase in those few locations were not related to drought, El Nino, cleaner air, fewer clouds, more local humidity, and a host of other known causes of warming? He made no answer then.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>USCRN, United States Climate Reference Network, has more than 100 pristine sites across the US, sites with no urban warming influence for the foreseeable future.</b> Mentioned Stovepipe Wells, CA (actually in Death Valley), and Alaska. Showed a slight warming trend for these locations. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(the misdirection here was to, again, make the point that warming occurs even where population is small. As before, no mention of non-CO2 causes of warming, El Nino, droughts, etc.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Professor Monty Alger of Penn State called Tom to say he was fully behind the Climate Solutions initiative at AIChE. </b> Alger will be AIChE president for 2020. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (see https://www.che.psu.edu/faculty/alger/ for a bio of Dr. Alger. The incoming president of national AIChE is equally misguided on the bad science, BS, of man-made global warming. However, as an academic, it is important for the national AIChE to support and assist the other academics who receive part of their grants and other funding from promoting man-made climate change. It is obvious that more work for chemical engineers will occur in designing and building the various systems to capture CO2, remove some from the atmosphere.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Tom said he was instrumental in getting AIChE to change their official stance on Global Warming with the 2019 statement on climate</b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(The previous statement on climate was essentially, "we don't take a position as the science is not settled," with the new, 2019 statement emphatically stating "</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Scientific analysis finds that non-natural climate change is occurring and has been strongly influenced by human-caused releases of greenhouse gases. . . . Adverse climate change poses threats to all of us, both individually and as a society. These threats fall squarely in the realm of the chemical engineer. . ." It is certainly dismaying that so many in our society could be so badly fooled by the BS, the bad science. What the current statement should say is "Some very bad scientific analysis finds that".... the causation should have mentioned the multiple known causes of warmer temperature, none of which are related to increased greenhouse gases.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Mentioned Hofmeister’s book “Why We Hate the Oil Companies.” Former president, Shell Oil. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Not much to say here, having not read the book. I suspect the theme is that oil companies have been hiding very bad facts for decades, have conspired to deceive the public and elected officials, the usual such things. It is quite instructive that Shell is mentioned, as they are notorious for having lied to the Securities Exchange Commission about the extent of their oil reserves, and were fined for doing that. Shell would do well in an era where oil is minimized in favor of natural gas consumption. That appears to be a primary goal of those who espouse climate solutions. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Said presenter Stephanie Thomas is a geologist. Matthew Berg won best presentation award for SPTC in Sugar Land, 2019.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(I sat through both Thomas' and Berg's presentations at that conference. Dr. Thomas is listed as having a PhD in Earth Sciences, not Geology. Dr. Berg has a PhD in Hydrology. I wrote on SLB on Dr. Thomas' presentation, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/more-bs-bad-science-at-sptc-in-sugar.html">see link</a>. I have not yet written an article on Dr. Berg's presentation, but it can be summarized as "flooding is getting worse, and global warming is the cause." He claimed, with a straight face, that local temperatures are melting railroad rails. Then, showed a slide of a distorted rail juncture. I laughed at that one.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Wants the world to be CO2-neutral by year 2030, and to do that we must make no more plastics.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(this one is quite incredible; I shook my head in disbelief. The modern world depends far too much on plastics to stop production. The disruption, increased costs, increased disease and illness, and increased energy consumption all are insurmountable factors that will make this one never happen. For just a few examples, how will hospitals and medical practices function without plastic? What will food packaging be made from, at what cost in product purity and increased discards, if not plastic? What will sanitation piping be made from? How will transportation vehicles maintain their current low weights (or mass) that allows excellent fuel economy? This one is, to use the vernacular, a doozy.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Renewables cannot do the job; 100 percent renewables is impossible. Cited Austin, Texas as having grid stability problems at 20 percent renewables on the local grid</b>. Said that the local grid and amount of renewables is the critical issue. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(on this minor point, we agree at least in part. SLB has articles on the 100 Percent Renewables issue, I agree that the world will not likely ever be run entirely by renewables. Where Rehm is wrong, though, is on the claim that 20 percent renewables causes instability on local grids. The fact is that many locations in the US have much more than 20 percent renewable power that makes electricity. The issue is not with the renewables, but with the flexibility of the other generating systems. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Mentioned the cost for renewables is prohibitively high, and the low capacity factor, 25 percent for solar and wind combined in Texas is a major obstacle</b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(this is a common talking point by the anti-renewables, pro-nuclear crowd. The fact is, the renewable sources of wind and solar are very competitive in the areas where the wind is good and the solar energy is strong. However, the economics of solar panels in high latitudes will continue to be very bad for many decades. Solar does well, though, in sunny areas (not cloudy) in locations between 30 degrees north and south of the equator. Wind is the most attractive generating source in many, many areas as thoroughly documented by the US Department of Energy and their annual Wind Technologies Market Reports.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>One solution is nuclear, with new designs as Professor Tsvetkov proposes</b>. Said nuclear has zero emissions, New designs will not use water as the moderator. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Tsvetkov clarified that zero-emissions view in his earlier 2019 speech to AIChE, it is not true for the entire nuclear cycle. <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/on-generation-iv-nuclear-plants.html">see link</a> to SLB article on Gen IV nuclear and Tsvetkov's presentation. Gen IV nuclear plants are unproven, most have not been built, a few prototypes were abandoned as hopeless. The increased safety and reduced costs claims are not true at all. Nuclear is never the solution; it costs far too much and is far too dangerous. ) </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Favors a carbon tax as paramount importance</b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(A carbon tax, or tax on companies that produce CO2 in their operations, is favored by one segment and opposed by another. Those in favor are typically oil and gas companies, the opposition are coal companies. Burning coal produces much more CO2 per unit of energy released, typically 2 - 3 times as much as does burning natural gas. So, a carbon tax is a perfect way to run coal companies out of business. Is it any wonder that oil and gas companies favor that? They get to sell more natural gas, usually as fuel to utilities.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Three steps to carbon neutrality: Mitigation, Adaptation, and Resiliency</b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The points on the slide for this statement included:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Manufacturing Energy Efficiency - Mitigation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Electricity Generation /Distribution - Mitigation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Transportation - Mitigation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Urban Energy Efficiency - Mitigation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Agricultural Practices - Mitigation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Land Use Practices - Mitigation, Adaptation, Resiliency</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-And, governmental policy solutions. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(He did not discuss these points in detail, except for the next paragraph on Regenerative Agriculture. My own experience over 40 years of engineering consulting and energy work as an employee in chemical manufacturing shows that none of the above are cost-effective, except for Transportation with electric battery-powered vehicles. If one favors the Efficient Market Theory, radical changes must make any market more inefficient and thus more costly to operate. The prospects of increased energy efficiency due to another world energy price shock, like the 1970s had, is virtually zero. Oil is no longer subject to price increases, and in fact OPEC is in disarray and oil prices are decreasing. There is a world-wide glut of natural gas, driving its prices down, and coal is on the decline except in a few isolated countries (India, China). That leaves only a government-mandated carbon tax to force such decreased energy usage. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Favors Regenerative Agriculture – soil must increase carbon content to remove CO2 from the air. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(with farming already a very slim profit endeavor, the costs to include carbon sequestration in soil must be subsidized to prevent bankruptcies. This may be where the carbon tax comes in; a wealth transfer from CO2 producers to the farmers. More on Regen Ag will be published shortly on SLB. For now, it's just another scheme to transfer wealth and run the oil companies out of business.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Electricity generation options he favors are nuclear and biomass. Said nuclear has the best safety record of all types when calculated on fatalities per TWh/y produced. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(I wonder if that includes the entire uranium mining and fuel preparation cycle, plant construction, generation, decommissioning, and spent fuel storage for centuries. SLB has articles on the dubious safety record of nuclear power plants, <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-19.html">see link</a> to "Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things," <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-16.html">and link</a> to "Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks," <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/us-nrc-stops-study-of-cancer-risks-near.html">and link</a> to "US NRC Stops Study of Cancer Risks near Reactors." As to biomass for power generation, there is too much power needed and not nearly enough biomass to burn. These facts have been known for decades. And, it gets worse. No more biomass is produced each decade, but the power generation needed keeps increasing.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Next, Rehm really pushed nuclear, to end the talk)</span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Nuclear is not presently used much due to unjustified public fear. Said advanced nuclear plants are much safer </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">("Unjustified fear" is a buzzword from nuclear proponents. One must wonder how much fear was justified among the Russians, Europeans, and others when Chernobyl exploded and sent radiation around the planet? How much fear was justified in Pennsylvania when Three Mile Island melted down and spewed radioactive steam into the skies? Were the evacuated pregnant women supposed to remain calm, cool, and collected during those horrible few days? How much fear was justified in Japan during and after the triple reactor meltdowns and explosions at Fukushima? How much fear is justified among the entire population, now that nuclear plants are being built in third-world countries with earthquakes and other serious threats to the plants' integrity? How much fear is justified now that cyber-security is a serious threat? As to advanced nuclear plants being much safer, how could he possibly know? None have been built except for a few tiny proof-of-concept plants. SLB has articles on the safety of new nuclear designs, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-28.html">see link</a> to "Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process," <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-29.html">and link</a> to "</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream"</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Advanced nuclear will recycle existing spent fuel and generate power from the recycled material, reducing toxic radioactive waste by a large amount. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Why bother? Fuel is not the expensive part of running a nuclear plant. Safety is not improved, either, as a previous article on SLB shows, <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-18.html">see link</a> to "Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe." )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Said SMR, small modular reactors, are the answer since they will be very low-cost to build in factories.</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(This is one of the same points made by Tsvetkov in his Gen IV speech to AIChE, and the same rebuttal applies: any cost reduction due to volume production requires millions of units, not hundreds as SMR would have. Economy of scale overwhelms any production cost reductions. NB, the wind energy business for WTG (wind turbine generators) has the same issue for blade manufacturing. The US industry builds and installs approximately 8 GW per year, at an average of 2.4 MW per WTG, thus the average number of WTG installed was 3,333. Number of blades made was 10,000 for 2018. Even that 10,000 items does not give low cost, so the industry strives for cost reductions via economy of scale with ever-larger WTG per unit. Offshore, size went from 2 to 4 to 8 and now 12 MW. Onshore, size from 1 to 3 and now 5 MW per WTG. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-eight.html">See link</a> to SLB article on SMR and all the many drawbacks, "No Benefits From Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants." )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>End of speech. </b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the Q&A portion, I asked this Question: <b>how much will electricity prices increase </b>if the proposed solutions are implemented? He admitted it will be a big increase but did not give a number. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The transition period will require decades, Shell says 50 years, he stated BP and ExxonMobil have similar time frames. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(how does this square with the earlier statement of carbon-neutral by 2030? That’s only 11 years away)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Q: <b>how will SMR reduce costs, when economy of scale is the major factor</b> in nuclear plant costs? He had no answer for that, either. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Q: <b>On USCRN slides that showed a warming, how much of the measured warming was due to CO2 increase, and how much to other factors </b>like cleaner air – he mentioned pollution laws cleaned the air around 1980 and temperatures immediately increased in those locations. His response was to show a graph purporting to show IR gap in Earth’s radiated energy out to space, with CO2 responsible for the gap. My rebuttal was, the gap is also exactly where water vapor H2O absorbs, so how do they know it is due to 300 – 400 ppm of CO2, and not due to several percent of water vapor? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The points made in this speech are typical of the misinformation and Bad Science (BS) of many in the climate alarmism camp. So much of what they know, just isn't so. (a quote from Ronald Reagan). The good news is, almost none of this is ever going to happen. Plastics are here to stay. Nuclear plants are a dying breed, and the sober review process and high standards at the NRC will prohibit the approval of the Gen IV reactors. Economics alone will kill off any other reactor designs, such as the NuScale small modular reactor system that is presently undergoing safety review at the NRC. Low-price wind electricity and natural gas power have doomed nuclear power, which is a very good thing. Wind energy is a booming business, and is here to stay. Solar is also booming in those areas of the world, as stated above, not far from the Equator where the sunshine is strong. The AIChE will likely see the Climate Solutions division, or initiative, whatever it is called, wither away in just a few short years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This website will have articles and updates on that, as they occur. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a>, <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-skeptics-view-of-man-made-global.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a>, and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-18041403413844310262019-10-08T09:10:00.002-07:002019-10-08T10:28:51.140-07:00More BS - Bad Science at SPTC in Sugar Land TX October 2019<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Consensus Conclusions are Wrong; Even When Repeated Over and Over</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This article discusses the main points and my comments on the presentation made by Stephanie Thomas, PhD(1) at the AIChE Southwest Process Technology Conference, Climate Solutions Session in Oct, 2019, Sugar Land, Texas. Dr. Thomas' p</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">resentation title is "Evidence of Climate Change; an Overview of the Science." (<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/shell-presentation-on-climate-and.html">see link</a> to another SLB article on the presentation on Climate and Energy by 2070, made by a Shell executive at the Tuesday night dinner meeting at the same conference. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(1) PhD Earth Sciences, listed as a community organizer at Public Citizen, a NGO. Lead article at present (10-9-2019) on the Public Citizen website is "Impeach Donald Trump"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(my comments below the main points are in parentheses)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Overview - “Multiple Lines of Evidence”</b> - she attributed these four slogans to Professor Mark Holtzapple of Texas A&M University. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> a.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It’s Warming </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> b.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It’s Bad</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> c.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It’s Us</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> d.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>We Can Fix It</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(this is very sophomoric sloganeering; a conference of chemical engineers certainly deserves a presentation at a much higher level. But, sloganeering is typical of the Bad Science proponents, perhaps they don't want anyone to actually investigate the data, the analyses methods, and the computer simulation models.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed the GATA Chart, </b>Global Average Temperature Anomaly, from 1880 - 2016. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(this is the same chart that clearly shows decreasing temperatures, a region of no change at all for 35 years, then two separated periods with similar increasing trends, one before 1945 and a similar one before 2015. Meanwhile, CO2 was steadily increasing in each year)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed a few false causes of the warming trend </b>– discarded each due to inadequate correlation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> a.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Sun’s energy output</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> b.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Volcanoes</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> c.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ice ages due to Earth Orbit variation (presumably the warming that ended the last glacial period 14,000 years ago was due to orbital changes accelerated by volcanic ash and dark particles on the ice surface)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">4.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Then showed <b>a strong correlation between GHGs and Temperature</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(ignored the 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Weakened her case</b> by saying a correlation exists between temperature rise with</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> a.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Aerosols</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> b.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ozone</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> c.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Land Use</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(actually, aerosols increased during the temperature decline 1945-1975)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">6.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Venus surface temperature</b> – claimed it is very hot due to CO2 in the atmosphere </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(wrong, Venus is very hot due to the very dense and thick atmosphere that is many miles deep. Earth has a few miles deep. See NASA for corroboration. The adiabatic lapse rate requires the surface to be very hot. ) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">7.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said CO2 is higher today than past 800,000 years</b> as shown by Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, varied from 180 to 280 ppm in the ice cores. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(How, then, were the previous inter-glacial periods hotter than this one? Approximately 8 degrees C warmer. The CO2 was never more than 280 ppm, yet the BS claims the climate was much hotter)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">8.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed chart of temp varies with CO2</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(wrong, Temperature changes occur 800 years before CO2 changes. Implies that warmer oceans <span style="background-color: white;">release </span>CO2 into the atmosphere, and cooler oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">9.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Energy use in total has increased over time</b>, said this is the source of CO2 in atmosphere. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Energy use is also the source of soot, particulate matter, smoke, jet exhaust, fly ash)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">10.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Claimed <b>researchers since 1800s reported GHG effects</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(This is immaterial, what matters is the magnitude of the impact; CO2 has a numerically insignificant impact)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">11.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Claimed <b>a prediction made in 1950 was accurate</b>, for 1 deg C increase by year 2000, with 30 percent increase in CO2. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(approx. 300 ppm to 370 ppm, what happened was about 0.8 deg C increase)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">12.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Mentioned Gore’s movie as good evidence</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(wrong, the movie has multiple false statements as clearly documented in many sources)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">13.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said oil companies now have statements that climate change is due to CO2</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(only because of shareholder pressure and a desire to avoid defending costly lawsuits)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>14.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ocean alkalinity is decreasing, says this is a big problem for crustaceans</b> (somehow, they did not go extinct during the previous warm-ocean periods)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">15.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Ocean Temperature is increasing,</b> says this harms coral reefs </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(here we go again, how did coral reefs survive the last several times Temperature was much hotter than today?)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">16.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said extreme weather is increasing</b>, example is Austin TX had the hottest September on record </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(no mention of drought, no rain, and very little wind in September 2019 in Austin. No mention of the late Spring this year, late crop planting, and early cold weather that is threatening the crops and yields)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">17.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said Arctic is heating, ice is melting,</b> Arctic ocean absorbs more heat from Sun </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(BS, bad science, the Arctic is at such a low angle to the Sun, very little heat is absorbed due to reflection off the water; instead, open water radiates heat much faster than does ice; ice acts like a blanket and keeps heat in the water; ice at Summer minimum has stabilized since 2006 – that’s 13 years now)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">18.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Glaciers are receding</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(BS, same rate today as in 1850; more dark soot and ash fall on the ice from the air due to man’s coal-burning and jet aircraft exhaust, and large forest fires due to bad management)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">19.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>More torrential rain due to GHGs</b>, said Houston has record flooding over past 5 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Wrong causation, the intense storms were due to stationary cold fronts that prevented the hurricanes from moving inland quickly; intense flooding was from bad infrastructure management, and increased building with impervious ground cover e.g. foundations, roads) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">20.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Sea level rise has an increasing rate</b>, due to warmer water and more ice melted and flowed into oceans </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(false, only after splicing together buoy data with satellite data. Buoy data shows no increase in rate of SLR)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">21.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>More deaths due to disease that was caused by GHG</b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Flat out wrong).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">End of S. Thomas presentation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>(No mention of:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> a.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>El Nino / La Nina</b> warming effects</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> b.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Timing and duration of droughts</b> – causes warming trend</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> c.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Increased humidity from power plants</b>, cooling towers, lawn watering, crop irrigation in deserts, etc</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> d.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Cleaner air due to air pollution laws</b> - removes aerosols and lets more Sunshine in</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> e.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Less cloud cover due to fewer sunspots</b> from 1950 – 2009</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> f.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Arctic ice extent stabilized</b> for past 13 years - 2006 – 2019</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> g.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Antarctic ice has grown for decades</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> h.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Coral reefs damaged by ships and humans</b> with suntan lotion, antifreeze, copper paint on ship bottoms, human waste dumped overboard</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> i.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Polar bears populations are increasing</b> - they survived at least 500,00 years of ice ages and interglacials much warmer than today</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> j.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Zero correlation between severe weather and increased CO2 </b>(IPCC said this)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> k.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Floods more severe due to increased runoff</b> from land use changes – more impervious cover, more siltation blockage in flow channels, more infrastructure blocking natural flow areas e.g. highways such as Houston’s Beltway Houston Harvey flooding was made worse by bad decisions by government to not maintain flood control dams at Barker, Addicks</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> l.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Hurricanes' ACE has not increased</b> since 1970)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sadly, this presentation is quite typical of the misinformation, disinformation, and glossing over of key points that completely refute the alarmists' basic message. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a>, <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-skeptics-view-of-man-made-global.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a>, and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-18649053586455930782019-10-03T11:36:00.000-07:002019-10-04T05:32:31.743-07:00Shell Presentation on Climate and Energy by 2070<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Hydrogen and Ammonia - Both Are Disasters</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A Vice-president and Chief Scientist-Chemical Engineering, from Shell made a speech on Tuesday evening, October 1, 2019 in Sugar Land, Texas, at which I am glad I attended and took a few notes. Dr. Joseph Powell, PhD in Chemical Engineering, was the speaker. The event was the </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-auegLiJNYss/XZY-OnZ1TGI/AAAAAAAABnk/5zs_NDvVrpYJPM7QVZV5_kwNdijrszIfwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Roger%2Bat%2BSPTC%2B2019.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1288" data-original-width="966" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-auegLiJNYss/XZY-OnZ1TGI/AAAAAAAABnk/5zs_NDvVrpYJPM7QVZV5_kwNdijrszIfwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Roger%2Bat%2BSPTC%2B2019.png" width="240" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">combined AIChE South Texas Section and Southwest Process Technology Conference dinner meeting at the Marriott Hotel conference center. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dr. Powell spoke on the need for changing the world's energy system to a carbon neutral basis to avoid catastrophic climate change. His proposed solutions covered a range of paths, but most notably using water, or methane, CH4, to create either 1) a hydrogen energy system, or 2) an ammonia, NH3, energy system. Solar and wind renewable energy systems were to play a big part in the basic energy input, with hydrogen or ammonia as the energy carriers. The time-frame was a transition period of 50 years, and carbon neutrality achieved by the year 2070. With a veiled swipe at the Green New Deal proposal, he mentioned that changing the world's huge energy infrastructure could not be done in a short period, but would require several decades. I agree with that last statement based on my 40 years experience in the industry, the sheer size and scope of the energy infrastructure would require decades to transform. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The presentation, as he said, was based on the Shell Sky Scenarios developed and published by Shell over the past few decades. ( <a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/shell-scenario-sky.html">see link</a> to Shell Sky Scenarios.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I cringed when I heard this presentation, and more than once. This article describes what I believe I heard, and why such things caused me to shake my head in total dismay. In short, <b><u>hydrogen is incredibly dangerous and should never be placed in general, widespread use due to the inevitable fires, explosions, and human deaths. Ammonia is equally toxic. </u> </b>The economic impact of a radical transition to hydrogen would be catastrophic to 90 percent of the world's population. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dr. Powell began with a brief introduction of his experience, with a BS in chemical engineering in 1978, when the US had gasoline shortages such that gasoline sales were allowed only on alternate days. A car owner could buy gas based on the last digit of the license plate, odd numbers on odd-numbered days, and even numbers on the even-numbered days. I recall those days vividly, as my BS in chemical engineering was awarded just one year earlier, in 1977. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dr. Powell obtained his PhD in chemical engineering a few years later (1984), and worked in various assignments at Shell for the past 30 years. Part of that appears to be looking far into the future, and evaluating various processes to meet energy demands. It is instructive, although he made no mention of this, that Shell's energy reserves are natural gas, to a significant extent. Shell has notably failed to discover significant oil reserves, however. So, it makes sense that Shell's Sky Scenarios would focus on processes that convert natural gas to usable transportation fuels. He did mention at one point Shell's gas-to-diesel process plant, PERL, in Qatar. The PERL plant takes an otherwise worthless natural gas pocket located deep in the Middle East, and produces diesel fuel that can be transported by ship or pipeline. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dr. Powell also mentioned that, in 1978, the world's climate scientists sounded the alarm over imminent global cooling. That, too, is a vivid memory, since the bitterly cold winters of 1977, 1978, and 1979 were at the end of a 35-year cooling trend (since 1945). (SLB has several articles on the Abilene Effect, and the unprecedented consecutive </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3 years of abnormally cold winters </span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/cold-winters-created-global-warming.html" style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">see link</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.) The climate scientists were very wrong then, as almost everyone knows by now. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One can only wonder why those climate scientists are to be believed now, when they were so spectacularly wrong in 1980 about global cooling and an imminent ice age. Few of the same scientists are alive today, but the discipline has quite a few people sounding an equally shrill alarm over global warming. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The final bit of introductory material discussed the opinion polls, which he said showed a large minority (I think 30-40 percent?) believe that climate change is real and is a crisis. Another minority view (perhaps another 40 percent?) held no position for or against, and a small minority hold the view that there is zero cause for alarm. He said that the opinion of stakeholders led Shell to develop the future scenarios. That was not shareholders he mentioned, but stakeholders. He did not define exactly who he meant by stakeholders. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As an aside, oil companies such as Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil (collectively known as Big Oil), and the national oil companies from many nations, have been the targets of many organizations for many decades. I have met many of the Big Oil opponents, and found that they fervently believe in things like the car with a 200 mile-per-gallon carburetor, magic portable batteries that let an affordable car run for 1000 miles on one charge, and recharge in 5 minutes, solar panels that work around the clock, and wind turbines that produce free electricity. Many of these same people advocate vigorously for nuclear power plants, even the tiny ones that would be buried in a vault in every neighborhood to produce electricity for very near free, just a small metering charge. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "It's not that (these people) don't know anything, but what they know just isn't so."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The reality is, yes, some cars obtain 200 miles per gallon. Much more than that, in fact. But, they can never be sold in commercial use because they will never meet the automotive safety standards. Those are highly specialized "cars" with very little weight, tiny engines, very high-pressure or solid tires, and run at slow speed on an incredibly smooth surface. We now do have batteries that would allow 1000 miles range, but the cost is still very high. Recharging in a short time is possible, but will be very expensive. Solar panels of course would not work around the clock, unless they are in orbit. Wind turbines are getting better, but 3 cents per kWh for the electricity is about the best we have at this time. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Returning to Dr. Powell's presentation, he described several process paths for a carbon-neutral energy system by the year 2070. They were, as best I can recall, gas to methanol, gas to hydrogen via carbon black process, water to hydrogen via electrolysis, gas to hydrogen via steam-methane-reforming with CO2 capture, and natural gas to ammonia. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The hydrogen would be transported to the end user, where cars with fuel cells would fill up and drive away for their normal use. He mentioned one detailed study that Shell performed, with solar panels in north Texas providing energy to produce hydrogen that would be sent to New York City for use in fuel-cell vehicles. It was not clear to me if the solar panels would make electricity for water electrolysis (produces hydrogen), or supply electricity for hydrogen production via the carbon black process. He did mention that excess carbon black could be permanently stored in abandoned coal mines. As an aside, that does not seem sustainable to me, since there are such a limited number of abandoned coal mines in the world. If we truly are about to run out of oil (and gas), surely we are equally certain to run out of space in the coal mines. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The mix of energy providers in year 2070 also seems very implausible, with nuclear power almost quadrupling from today, solar PV providing a bit more than 30 percent of all energy, and wind providing a bit more than 10 percent of all energy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nuclear power is going to shrink, and fall to almost zero within 20 years as it is completely lost in the competitive market, not to mention the growing awareness of the dangers of meltdown disasters. (<b>Update 10/4/2019</b>: Shell's proposal would have 1,800 nuclear power plants built between year 2020 and 2070, with one large 1,000 MWe output plant started up every 10 days for the next 50 years. Clearly, that is never going to happen. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html">see link</a> for SLB articles on the many insurmountable disadvantages of nuclear power - end update) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Solar has a distinct disadvantage compared to wind, because even in the best locations, solar can only produce at approximately 25 percent of the installed capacity. The Sun's path across the sky dictates this outcome. However, wind does not care where the Sun is, and wind turbine generators are already producing at an annual rate of 50 percent (some at 60 percent) of nameplate capacity. The result of this is that any storage system for solar must be at least twice as large, require more capital to install, and have more losses on charging and discharging. Solar PV will never, ever, win out over wind on a global basis. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For some illustrative numbers, a 4,000 MW solar power plant that produces at 25 percent of nameplate would produce only 24,000 MWh in a 24 hour period. But, for the 6 hours per day that it does operate, and using 100 percent output as a simplification, the plant would send one-fourth of the output to the grid (6,000 MWh), and three-fourths (18,000 MWh) to a storage system (presumably batteries). The storage system would then discharge for 18 hours each day, returning approximately 80 percent of the stored electricity back to the grid. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Wind turbines that operate at 60 percent of nameplate would have a similar analysis, 1,667 MW at 60 percent gives 24,000 MWh in a 24 hour period. Only 40 percent need be stored, with 9,600 MWh stored. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Shell's Sky Scenario is entirely implausible for many reasons, and is extremely unsafe due to the reliance on hydrogen as an energy carrier. The system is also woefully too costly, with reliance on very expensive nuclear plants, and solar PV systems with twice the storage requirements compared to wind turbine generators. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is zero need to reduce any CO2 emissions in any event, since any measured warming in the past 100 years is almost entirely due to natural forces, increased human population growth, and increased energy consumption. Natural droughts since 1960, El Nino events since 1960, urban heat effect from more dense cities, increased fuel and electricity per capita, decreased cloud cover due to more sunspots, and cleaner air with fewer aerosols due to air pollution laws, all are responsible for "global warming." But, CO2 is innocent. (<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-skeptics-view-of-man-made-global.html">see link</a> to SLB article on A Skeptic's View of Climate Science - It's BS)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a>, <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-skeptics-view-of-man-made-global.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-76071417218285150692019-09-12T13:39:00.000-07:002019-09-29T08:06:32.953-07:00A Skeptic's View of Man-Made Global Warming Science - 2019<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Man-made Global Warming is Pure BS - Bad Science</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_h1o7oAUSRQ/XXqVWYBI8II/AAAAAAAABjk/-0acYfe06544QItH9gZwGBJgsfJvCggiwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528315%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="504" data-original-width="896" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_h1o7oAUSRQ/XXqVWYBI8II/AAAAAAAABjk/-0acYfe06544QItH9gZwGBJgsfJvCggiwCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Screenshot%2B%2528315%2529.png" width="400" /></a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Below are the audio transcript and principal presentation slides from my luncheon presentation to South Texas Section of AIChE in Houston, Texas, given on Friday, September 6, 2019. The audio transcript has had minor edits for clarity. (removed the coughs, and such things.) My sincere thanks to my very dear friend, T. who taped this for me, and assisted greatly with the transcribing. And a special Hello and thanks for being there to my old and wonderful friends, P. and R. You know who you are! </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zacwblp285k/XXqVaC3EZxI/AAAAAAAABjo/pCI1yvbOcg0gumzzjTMcCOSVLpfOThiRACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528316%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="363" data-original-width="749" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zacwblp285k/XXqVaC3EZxI/AAAAAAAABjo/pCI1yvbOcg0gumzzjTMcCOSVLpfOThiRACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528316%2529.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(<b>UPDATED 9-16-2019</b>: Included material on the many issues with the data, which was not presented in the speech due to time limitations. See end of article. -- end update.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Transcript begins: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Good afternoon, and thank you for that warm welcome, William. I want to give a brief introduction about why this particular topic is on the agenda today. The STS AIChE this year has an executive board that chose man-made global warming as a focus, with several speakers on the topic with more yet to speak. I asked the STS president if I could speak in a rebuttal capacity. He agreed, and today I’m delighted to be the speaker. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Today, I will not lecture and tell you what to believe. You are all chemical engineers, as I am, and I expect you to make up your own minds after considering the data. I believe that much of the material in the presentation today has not been publicized much, if at all, and we skeptics want to have this material discussed and considered. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Man-made global warming, or AGW, is, in my view, BS…. That is, Bad Science. And when I say my view, or our view, I am including the many hundreds and thousands of other trained engineers (and scientists) who have looked into this, and agree with me. So, it’s not just me out there, making up a bunch of numbers. There are some really smart people that agree with this. The science is far too uncertain, the steps taken too questionable, to have any serious credibility. This presentation is about some of the facts and issues that we have seen over the past 15 to 20 years in our research and analysis. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here are some basic facts, with which both the IPCC and the skeptics agree. First, CO2 is a luminous gas, it absorbs IR radiation, then releases the heat. Next, measured temperatures DO show an increasing trend – but only in select locations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The measured temperatures, however, do show a warming trend if you take a look at places like Boston, or New York, or Miami, you will find that yes, they are warmer now than they were 100 years ago. But, not in all locations and that is a key point. We will see more of that. The present climate, as said often by CNN and other people, it’s hotter now everywhere on Earth than it’s ever been in the temperature record. That’s just not true, and we will see that. It’s been a lot warmer in the past 12,000 years, multiple times. (Note, Examples are the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Optimum, and the early climate optimum) And in the (AIChE) meeting last March, I don’t know how many of you were there for that, the professor from A&M came, Dr. Holtzapple I think, and was telling us how we are going to have all these species be extinct if we have another degree of warming, or something like that. (<a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/rebuttal-to-aiche-presentation-on.html">see link</a> for SLB article on that presentation) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My question at the time was, Sir, how did they survive the last four times when it was much warmer than today, when the warming lasted for hundreds and hundreds of years? Well, he didn’t like that question. Apparently, you do not ask questions like that, not at one of those meetings. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But, survive they did. Polar bears have been around for at least the last 450,000 years, although some scientists will say it is more like 3,000,000. That means they have been through several warm periods, and did just fine. (<a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-climate-false-alarmists-are.html">see link</a> to SLB article, "Polar Bears Don't Know They Went Extinct 100,000 Years Ago")</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We also know there are many cycles to the climate. I won’t go through all of them, but there are sunspot cycles, both an 11 year and 22 year. There’s a 60 year weather cycle, there’s a 1,500 year climate cycle. That was published by one of my colleagues and friends, Dr. S. Fred Singer, as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years." His associate on that one was Dr. Dennis Avery. I highly recommend everyone read that book; it is pretty good. Then, there is the 100,000 year Milankovic cycle that gives us the ice ages and warm periods in between. All of those are known. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fCiFDZNRdRA/XXqXLS7547I/AAAAAAAABj8/Dz9r39_dl_Es0bTaaxXaWREO2QOb5S-8ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/image1%2B%25284%2529.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1084" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fCiFDZNRdRA/XXqXLS7547I/AAAAAAAABj8/Dz9r39_dl_Es0bTaaxXaWREO2QOb5S-8ACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/image1%2B%25284%2529.jpeg" width="216" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Cooler SST anomaly in blue, East of Florida<br /> due to Hurricane Dorian - 2019</b><br />
<b>CREDIT: </b><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><b>Image from Climate Reanalyzer </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><b>(https://ClimateReanalyzer.org), </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><b>Climate Change Institute, </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><b>University of Maine, USA</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Some others: we have an El Niño cycle that is roughly 8 years, but not very regular. Should we call that a cycle? Well, maybe. Then there are the ocean oscillations, and then we have another fact, not a cycle. Hurricanes, when you have fewer of them, I don’t know if everybody agrees with this. But in my view, they are Nature’s air conditioning machine. They will cool the waters that they pass over. You can actually see that on some of the IR graphs from space. The path of this latest one, Dorian, bringing us a nice low temperature across a big swath there. So, if we have fewer hurricanes, we are going to have warmer ocean water. No one much mentions that one, either. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, the main points I want to make today are these five, listed here: we will talk about:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Inconsistent warming from carbon dioxide. That’s one of the main reasons that I got into this. I saw that there was more inconsistency, and that, that bothered me.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-We have a lot of failed predictions, from the climate models. Many of their predictions have failed. We are still looking for one to come true, actually. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-In my view, rather in our view, the causes of the warming, and remember I said there actually is some measured warming, they have identified all the wrong causes. We are going to look at about half a dozen or so actual causes that they don’t even talk about. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-The data that they are using, and I really hope you never use data like that in engineering, because it is so bad, it is what we call Not fit for purpose. You can’t do what they want to do with that data. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-And then finally, if we have enough time, and I don’t know that we will, talk about the uncertainty. There is an awful lot of uncertainty that is very large, and in many areas of what they call Settled Science, according to CNN and others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The first one, about the consistency of CO2. We know that it is not consistent. However, if it is real science, it must be consistent. I have a stage prop here, if I can find it. Here it is. Just a little ball, a 2-inch rubber ball, no big deal. If I was able to throw this ball up exactly 17 inches, every single time, it would take almost exactly one second to go all the way up, then all the way down. (tossing the ball up several times). We know that from basic physics. What I want you to do, if somebody here in the room will volunteer for me, take this ball, and throw it up about that high (3-4 feet) every time, and make it come down within one second. (chuckles from the audience). Anybody? Any takers on that one? (audience: “I don’t think so!”) This is one second and a toss of 17 inches. If you throw it up 34 inches, we know from basic physics that it is never going to come down within one second. And I’d like someone else to throw it up three inches, and make it stay up in the air for three seconds. (tossing the ball 3 inches up). Do we have any takers on that one? I don’t see any takers. (audience: Sowell, you are nuts!) Yes. Because, that is what CO2 does. Sometimes, if gravity behaved like CO2, we could get one second for a toss. And other times, it would take 3 seconds. And sometimes, it only takes ½ a second to go up and down. Totally inconsistent. When we see that in the real world, that rang alarm bells for me. I’m going to use this (ball) again in a minute, so I’m going to put it right there (on a table.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We are going to see a graph of the CO2, it did increase by 100 ppm, which is roughly one-third in a period of roughly 100 years, correction, that’s 60 years. I’ll go ahead and show that slide. This is the same slide that the guy showed last March, this is the carbon <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v4r7obTygNw/XXqZ9-BcLrI/AAAAAAAABkY/m-fBBR54vAEkWgj5m9rsn8CHp1LLs_lawCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528305%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="717" height="301" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v4r7obTygNw/XXqZ9-BcLrI/AAAAAAAABkY/m-fBBR54vAEkWgj5m9rsn8CHp1LLs_lawCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Screenshot%2B%2528305%2529.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>CO2 since 1959 measured at Mauna Loa</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
dioxide in the atmosphere on a dry basis, they do take the humidity out first. It is measured at the site at Mauna Loa (Hawaii). (<a href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/">see link</a> to CO2 data over time) The key point here is that this graph, which goes from 1959 up to 2019, and these are ppm numbers (indicating vertical axis), from 315 down here, and 400 ppm is this black line across there. So, roughly from 300 to 400 in a span of 60 years, more or less, 55 or something like that. And this is what all the alarm is, all that CO2 going into the air. But, if you were to, and this is a trick that those guys do, they will make graphs like this that are deliberately misleading or deceptive. If you were to plot this out, with a graph that starts at zero, and the top up here is around 4,000 ppm, which is what the span is we think over the history of the Earth, that line is totally flat. Totally flat. So, here it is, and we will see more about that. This is going to play a key role in the unsettled science, when we get to that at the end. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, what does that mean, 300 parts per million? What does that look like? There are all kinds of examples out there, if one has a football field, it is the last one-eighth of an inch before you reach the end zone. Kind of things like that. (Note, it is actually 1 inch out of the entire football field of 100 yards) Well, here’s something that I wanted to show. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you have a cube, that was 27 inches, basically the length of my arm (indicating to the side), a cube that big would contain 20,000 cubic inches. Anybody here with a calculator could probably run that one out. And, if six of those cubic inches, which would be three of <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BN43rr1pw5Q/XXqafbATCpI/AAAAAAAABkg/rBSNpwzu5JwgcpSbBSdt42leXxM6ingvQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/CO2%2BCUBE%2BDEMONSTRATION%2B-%2B3%2BBALLS.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="489" height="241" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BN43rr1pw5Q/XXqafbATCpI/AAAAAAAABkg/rBSNpwzu5JwgcpSbBSdt42leXxM6ingvQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/CO2%2BCUBE%2BDEMONSTRATION%2B-%2B3%2BBALLS.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Visualizing 300 ppm as in 1960<br />No alarm sounded, everyone was cool </b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> these little rubber balls, roughly, that would constitute the same amount as 300 parts per million. Now, that was what we had in 1960, if you remember, and everybody was cool. Nobody was worried about global warming. Because, 300 ppm didn’t warm the Earth to an alarming degree. What happened? In 60 years, another ball showed up in the cube. This one is red, because it is the big trouble-maker. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xfmU9yvxrQs/XXqahIZuDuI/AAAAAAAABkw/2xp06VovMII2c6ptBYUm42_30R7UxElgACEwYBhgL/s1600/CO2%2BCUBE%2BDEMONSTRATION%2B-%2B4%2BBALLS.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="489" height="242" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xfmU9yvxrQs/XXqahIZuDuI/AAAAAAAABkw/2xp06VovMII2c6ptBYUm42_30R7UxElgACEwYBhgL/s320/CO2%2BCUBE%2BDEMONSTRATION%2B-%2B4%2BBALLS.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Visualizing 400 ppm as in 2014<br />That one added ball is claimed <br />to cause all sorts of harm</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
That is all it is, just one more out of three in there, is causing all of this alarm and trouble, and what we are supposed to have; catastrophic problems. Something to think about. Can one more ball, out of three, in a cube that big, cause all that trouble?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Next, here is the history of the global temperature. This is the surface. They have another one that is very similar to this that includes the land and the ocean together. The source for this is the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They put together these reports, and you can read them. This is what they believe the average temperature changed over the course of the past 140 years. The beginning is 1880, the minimum is at 1910, and this goes up to 2018. The peak there was 2015. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QZlVjMcwje8/XXqcS-Re7zI/AAAAAAAABk8/SqFphG0qa0ELvZaW_XhDopseqjPaXdBGgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528317%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="712" height="215" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QZlVjMcwje8/XXqcS-Re7zI/AAAAAAAABk8/SqFphG0qa0ELvZaW_XhDopseqjPaXdBGgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528317%2529.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Has anybody seen this graph before? I hope that some people are familiar with this. The interesting thing about that graph is, it is not very consistent. We had a little bit of cooling occurring, we had some warming occurring in here (1910 – 1945), then we had a confused area here (1945-1975), where it sort of leveled out. All that time, CO2 if you remember that curve above, was going up and up and up. In engineering, if we have something like this and you call upon a control systems engineer, saying “build me a control system to control that,” you would not use CO2 as your control variable. Because, that piece in the middle, right there (1945-1975). It’s what we call not monotonic increasing. (audience: a lack of correlation)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We note the rising temperature here started off in about 1975. That’s a very interesting time when that started, and we will talk more about that. What happened (chuckling). So.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What we can see in the inconsistency, and I want to show a number of examples, of how CO2 did not behave consistently like a ball would behave in a gravity demonstration. These are the ones I want to talk about, from the largest scope we have; one hemisphere is not warming much and the other is. Does anybody know which is which? Which one is warming? (audience: the northern). The northern hemisphere is warming, and the southern hemisphere, almost none whatsoever. What is interesting to me, how does CO2 know what’s North, and what’s South? All the way down to the smaller scales; we can go to regional, states, counties, we can go all the way to cities. For adjacent cities, some are warming, some are not. That’s a good trick, if you can pull that off, with CO2. That’s amazing. We are going to see some of that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here is another IPCC graph, this is from their fifth assessment report, called the AR5. It came out about 5 years ago I think. The important point here is the different colors for areas in the United States. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irc4UNCcJLs/XXqclwtKJtI/AAAAAAAABlE/fXvCibU2L1UZhqfV46ezT0Ojg9XyaScNgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528299%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="580" data-original-width="620" height="299" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irc4UNCcJLs/XXqclwtKJtI/AAAAAAAABlE/fXvCibU2L1UZhqfV46ezT0Ojg9XyaScNgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528299%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>North America Annual Temperature Change,<br /> coded by color</b><br />
<b> - CREDIT: IPCC</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I removed a little piece of this graphic, so what the title says is Annual Temperature Change. Here is the scale; blue means it got cooler, and the shades of yellow and red are warming. The redder it is, the hotter it is getting. The time period is about 110 years, from 1901 to 2012 in this case. They have blocked it out by regions. We can tell right here, this is a blue-ish region, in the South and Southeast of the United States, actually cooled in over 100 years. Very interesting. And yet, right next to it we have an area that is warming. An area that is cooling and one warming are right next to each other. That‘s probably central Texas and West Texas right there. Right next to that we have this whole zone, basically the Rocky Mountains, and a bit of Arizona, are warming a lot. Again, my question has always been, How does CO2 know? Did somebody go up there and tell it, look, down there’s the Rockies, send down the heat! (audience question: what is the red blob at the top, is that Greenland?) Actually, that red block is just south of Hudson Bay in Canada. (audience: that doesn’t make sense). Exactly. We have this all over the world. If we look at their world map, it shows the whole thing. There are a lot of different rates of warming, and some cooling. (audience: not bothered by this so much, various wind currents and other factors would do that. Isn’t the important point the average temperature?) And that is what they do, but I will present to you why I think that is an improper way to look at it. Again, I’m not here to tell you what to think.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> The issue is, what if you have two cities that are only 50 miles apart. There would not be that much difference in climate, we would think. They both have the same altitude, the same latitude, and I know which two cities these are. One of them is warming at a ridiculous rate, about 2 degrees C per century, while the other is not warming at all. And that is Sacramento, and San Francisco. Sacramento, according to their data, has no warming going on at all, while San Francisco is warming like crazy. That is not the only two pairs, there are a lot of pairs of cities. In another presentation, I went through that part. I can tell you which cities today, that is Shreveport in Louisiana is not warming at all, while St. Louis not too far away is warming a lot. Then, Abilene, Texas is not warming at all, but not too far up the highway, is St. Louis. There are many, many examples like this out there. (audience: what about Greenland?) Greenland has a totally different climate compared to say, South Texas, they are a long way away. But, Shreveport and St. Louis? It is amazing. Something to look into, something to think about. And, they don’t tell you about that. That’s one of the ones they don’t want to talk about. (<a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html">see link</a> and figures 6 and 7 there for discussion on adjacent cities with disparate warming/cooling)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(audience question about the many factors that impact the environment and warming.) I have an entire section on the various factors, that we will get to in just a moment. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I now want to talk to you about the small towns. I am doing some research right now, using official government data from NOAA. I’m looking at the very smallest towns in the nation, towns with 5,000 or 6,000 population or smaller, that have long records all the way back to 1910. Plus, almost all of the data is present. Here are the results I am finding. I only show about 20 of these results because we do not have enough time to go through them all. The temperature trends are from minus 3 degrees (F). minus 2.5, last one here is minus 1.8 degrees F per century. These are the overall trend in 109 years’ worth of data of the tiny towns. Again, these are the discrepancies where the big town next to it is warming, but these little towns out here in the prairie are not. Some of the names you might recognize, Natchez in Mississippi, Mena, Arkansas in fact I have that one right here to show you. Here’s Danavang in South Texas, near El Campo, with trend of minus 1.1 degrees. (Note, these slides are not shown here pending final review and publication). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here’s the graph of temperatures in Mena, Arkansas, with data from 1910 to 2018. We have 109 years inclusive. The trend or slope for Mena is minus 2.7 degrees F per century. I don’t see any warming at all from 1970 onward. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bw4ap7WIlOg/XXqdlLHifVI/AAAAAAAABlQ/bhgYk-n5ne83ZO9v-SAfCk-hZv5JpmYVgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528306%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="813" height="157" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bw4ap7WIlOg/XXqdlLHifVI/AAAAAAAABlQ/bhgYk-n5ne83ZO9v-SAfCk-hZv5JpmYVgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528306%2529.png" width="320" /></b></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Annual average Temperatures, Mena Arkansas<br />Data from NCDC</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, something else, maybe there are other factors that are causing that town to cool. Maybe something else is causing others to warm. In our view, that’s not CO2. And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of these and I’ve looked at about 100 towns so far. On average they are not warming at all. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And here we have Donaldson Louisiana right on the river not too far from New Orleans and same thing, no warming at all here. Another one, I won’t go through all of these, I’ll only put three up here, there’s one in Missouri, it’s not just in the south, some are further up in all the different states. There’s Illinois, Idaho, <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-psqdVECm3fE/XXqeOh80zJI/AAAAAAAABlY/7WS-hBKji-kUQJquppBBFFNWwTqvvHjHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528307%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="764" height="150" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-psqdVECm3fE/XXqeOh80zJI/AAAAAAAABlY/7WS-hBKji-kUQJquppBBFFNWwTqvvHjHACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528307%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Data from NCDC</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
South Dakota, they’re all across the country. They all do this. So that’s something to think about …. How can we have disparate warming trends from adjacent localities? And then we’re going to see what happens in different counties where there is a great study there.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here it is, the Goodridge chart. Mr. Goodridge is retired from the state of California where he was the State Climatologist for many years. He published this graph and<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d1oNcz6N5V8/XXqek-DEfAI/AAAAAAAABlg/JFXnLBcRSmc6aLnv2XKfvN8KmVhVLQ7OACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528309%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="722" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d1oNcz6N5V8/XXqek-DEfAI/AAAAAAAABlg/JFXnLBcRSmc6aLnv2XKfvN8KmVhVLQ7OACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528309%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Data from NCDC</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
some text to go along with it. What this shows, in case you can’t really see, is the average of different counties in California. They have, I think, 80 something counties, not nearly as many as Texas. He asked, how much is the warming, and I think his time frame is from 1910 to 1995. He stratified this, grouped them by the population in the county in the 1990 census. He published in, I think, 1995 or something like that. What he found was that this top line is the average of all the counties that have one million people or more. He showed there is definitely some warming in those counties, take a look at that. Then he did the ones, the small counties, with these down here with almost no warming at all, these have 100,000 people or fewer as of the 1990 census. These had basically no warming. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YXNy1u3enfI/XXqeyAlH5TI/AAAAAAAABlk/dVvLlexa-XkJmehVIhrqKsQxbV7Vno5WwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Goodridge%2B1996%2BLUC%2Bin%2BCalifornia.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="318" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YXNy1u3enfI/XXqeyAlH5TI/AAAAAAAABlk/dVvLlexa-XkJmehVIhrqKsQxbV7Vno5WwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Goodridge%2B1996%2BLUC%2Bin%2BCalifornia.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>California UHI Trends </b><br />
<b>CREDIT: - J. Goodridge 1996</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The ones in the middle, between 100,000 and one million is this line, and sure enough it fell pretty much in the middle. This was one of the main points that got me started whatever it was, 15 years ago or something like that. How can that be true, if CO2 is going to be the causal agent for global warming? So, we have seen the cities, we’ve seen the counties, and the regions. I didn’t show you the slide but you can look in any of their publications to see the northern hemisphere is warming more than the southern. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We have some fairly respected authorities that agree with this position that CO2 is not the causal agent. At the very bottom of this slide is Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT, I have not met him but I did meet Dr. Singer. What he (Lindzen) said was that global warming, and this is a piece from a longer quote, global warming from the greenhouse gas effect is trivially true and numerically insignificant. I have to agree with that, because we know we have fired heaters where CO2 is in fact, a major source of heat transfer. In fact, if you do not account for that, your furnace is not going to work like you think it would. But, up in the atmosphere, and we are going to see some of that too in a minute, why it is that that statement is true, at least in our view. And yet, I would hope you would think this over. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">CO2 we know has substantial absorbing and release characteristics in fired furnaces. You can look that up if you are not familiar with it, it is in Perry’s in the Heat Transfer by Radiation chapter, I think it is Chapter 5. Or, you can also just look for luminous gases in the Google Scholar section. There is all sorts of stuff about luminous gases and how those things behave. CO2 is one of them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But, there are three parameters that make a difference when we design a furnace, as to how much heat to account for from the CO2. Those are listed right here, first is concentration, we get more radiation at a higher concentration. Second is pressure, with more absorption and release as pressure goes up. The third is distance, what they call the mean beam length or mean path length. If you talk to a designer, he will say I’m not going to build you a furnace with the tubes over here, 500 feet away, with the flame over here. You are never going to get the heat over there. They are going to be measured more in inches, and sometimes in feet in these furnaces. And, that is a critical point. Because, up in the atmosphere where all of this is supposed to be happening, none of those variables are favorable to heat transfer from CO2. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First of all, we are talking about ppm, 300, maybe 400, compared to what is in a furnace with 100,000 to 150,000 ppm, something like that, depending on what we are burning. For pressure, at the ground they are roughly the same for a furnace versus the atmosphere, but, once we start getting up in the atmosphere, the pressure starts dropping. If anyone has been to the mountains, it is guaranteed there is less pressure up there. And, the distances in the atmosphere are measured in miles. We are not measuring in inches. So, here we go. I hope as chemical engineers you will go take a look at this. I have this saying when I make my speeches, please, prove me wrong. You see, I hate to be wrong, and if I am wrong, I don’t want to be wrong for very long. Please, you have my card, I don’t like being wrong, especially for very long. This is right there in Perry’s. I have yet to actually find something in Perry’s that is not right. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, what’s next. We talked about CO2 and how it is inconsistent, how it probably can’t do what they say it does, in fact, I don’t think it can do that up in the atmosphere. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let’s talk about the failed predictions. In climate science there are all of these gloom and doom things that are supposed to happen. You’ve probably heard them all, where sea level is going to make New Orleans an underwater city, Florida is going to disappear, we have all this bad news from sea level rise. We have temperatures are supposed to rise in the tropics, in the atmosphere above the tropics, what they call the “hot spot.” I don’t know if you are familiar with that, but it is one of the hot button issues. We are supposed to have more hurricanes, they are supposed to be stronger, there are supposed to be more tornadoes and in the higher categories, we are supposed to have polar ice that is melting at a more rapid rate, all of these bad, bad things are going to happen. Now, let’s take a look at the reality (chuckling.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First of all, sea level rise, our first one, has been measured for a couple of centuries by buoys, mainly in harbors around the world. The data is not the best, for instance we measure in millimeters now, but they didn’t even know what a meter was back then. I don’t know when the meter was established, was it in 1890 or in 1990, something like that. The best records that we have show an increase of roughly 1.4 mm per year over all those centuries. Then, we put up satellites starting in about 1979, and those established the rise is much more, at 3.2 mm per year as the accepted rate. And, they slide that one by!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You can’t take two different measurements, by two different systems, and string the numbers together end to end. That is called data splicing, and that is a factually erroneous technique. Putting on my lawyer hat here for a minute, if somebody pulls that in one of the cases I’m involved in, we are likely going to win because we can prove that’s a very bad thing to do. Yet, they do this all the time in climate science. (audience question: how do they measure 3.2 mm by satellite? And that accurately?) That’s a very interesting question, and I don’t know the whole answer. My understanding is they actually shine a laser-beam down, and there are collectors on the satellite itself. The laser bounces off the wave crests and the troughs, and some goes off at angles, and they can average out all of that and measure the time required for the light waves to come back. Then, they have to correct, because the satellite is not in a perfectly circular orbit. To the extent it is a little closer at one point, the light gets there a bit faster. And, I’m exaggerating this, but if it is a big egg-shaped orbit, it will take longer (at the far end) for the light to get there and back. So, they adjust for all of that. That’s my layman’s understanding of a very complex thing. (audience comment: regarding adjusting for all of that, as an old chemical engineer, I think that’s Bull-$hit. …. Followed by laughter from audience. Commenter again: what I’m getting at is, 3.2 mm is nothing. I don’t know where they came up with the 1.4 mm, but I can just see somebody with a ruler.) It gets even more complicated, and you bring up a good point, because the tide doesn’t stay in one spot. We all know that the tide goes down, and it goes up. Some days it has a low tide at one level, and some days a high tide that is really high, and some days there are tides in the middle. So, if you are measuring the tides by the tidal gauge at the harbor here in Galveston, which they do, by the way, you can take a look at the data there. How does one detect a trend on this over 100 years? These are what they publish, and these are the things they claim are happening. What it boils down to is, 1.4 mm is roughly 5 inches per century. The 3.2 is about double that, about 8 or 9 inches per century (aside, 3.2 mm/y is 12 inches per century. I was off by a couple of inches on that one). (audience comment: it’s the same principle as a radar gun.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What they don’t include, and this is the major point I want to make here, and I’ve never seen this in any of their writings, is we know there is siltation occurring in the oceans. There is stuff washed off the land, there is mud and sand, all kinds of stuff. How do we know? Because we have what we call sedimentary rocks. We have sandstone, limestone, and shale, all created by stuff that washed off and landed on the ocean floor, and eventually compacted into rock. In basic geology classes, in any textbook, they will have that statement: the siltation rate in the oceans, they didn’t give a number, they just said a few millimeters per year. Now, “a few” is a bit ambiguous, but it is on the order of 1.5 to 3, could be maybe 4 or 5. That is amazingly similar to what they claim as the rate of sea level rise. You can do this at home, playing with your kids or grandkids, get a bucket and fill it almost to the top with water. Then start pouring some sand into the bucket, that would be the silt going into the ocean. After a while, the water overflows because the level goes up. My question is, why don’t the IPCC talk about that? How much of the rise that is supposed to be from melting ice, is actually because of siltation going on in the oceans? They won’t talk about that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Next, the point about the temperature rise above the tropics, this cannot be found. They call it the “hot spot,” there has been a couple of publications on that. I have a chart here to show on that. This chart is from a presentation made by Dr. John Christy,<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EJqOpLYTlAM/XXqfW61SFoI/AAAAAAAABls/mAKPvSH90yEc6-8IgKDQpvi0BP5Q8qUMgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528310%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="754" height="215" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EJqOpLYTlAM/XXqfW61SFoI/AAAAAAAABls/mAKPvSH90yEc6-8IgKDQpvi0BP5Q8qUMgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528310%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Missing Hot Spot </b><br />
<b>CREDIT: Dr. J. Christy, UAH</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
of University of Alabama at Huntsville. (<a href="https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/JohnChristy-Parliament.pdf">see link</a> to Dr. Christy's presentation) The light purple lines are the results of model runs that show what the temperatures should be doing above the tropics in the upper atmosphere. The blue lines are what has actually been measured, primarily from balloons and satellites. They are trying to find it (hot spot), and the basic conclusion is, that part of the theory is a bust. They cannot find any evidence of a hot spot, and after 60 years of CO2 going up, it ought to be glowing hot up there. And, it is not. So, there is another area where their models are wrong, their theory didn’t work. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Next, more hurricanes, we will talk about that. More tornadoes, I don’t have a slide, and polar ice, I do have a slide on that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is another professor, Dr. Ryan Maue, he is at Florida State University. He puts out this chart. As you know, global warming theory says that hurricanes should be getting more frequent, and more intense, more of them. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-46SzquajBGY/XXqfmk2vM8I/AAAAAAAABlw/NA_9oDtwhFkRhJwOo9QPWBajwEBsJvLqwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Hurricanes%2BMaue%2Bglobal_running_ace.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="640" height="159" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-46SzquajBGY/XXqfmk2vM8I/AAAAAAAABlw/NA_9oDtwhFkRhJwOo9QPWBajwEBsJvLqwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Hurricanes%2BMaue%2Bglobal_running_ace.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Accumulated Cyclone Energy</b><br />
<b>CREDIT: Dr. R. Maue, FSU</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If you were to block out the end of the graph, and look only at from 1972 up to 1994, they were cheering, cheering like crazy. Their theory was working, we had more hurricanes happening, and “Yay Team! We were right!” But as we know, Nature bats last, and look what happened in the years after that. This graph shows, the top line is the accumulated cyclone energy. We take a hurricane or a tropical cyclone, and we measure how big an area it covers, and we measure how fast the winds are going, and the time in how many hours or days it actually does all of this. You can compute a number for the energy it took to do all of that. In my simple way, if I’m an engineer and a man comes to me and says build me some fans big enough to make a hurricane spin like that, how much horsepower will it take to do that, and how much electricity is it going to take to run it? Well, that’s kind of what it is, for the whole world. The bottom line is the same thing, but only for the northern hemisphere. They tend to track pretty well. That was a big bust; we have fewer hurricanes, not more. You wouldn’t believe that, if you listened to CNN. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(audience question on toxic pollutants’ effect on biological systems, especially those involved in recycling.) If I can paraphrase with my booming voice, the concern is about pollutants, perhaps aerosols, I think acid rain would fall into that category. What can we do to mitigate those sorts of things, how does that fit into the bigger picture of climate change. Did I get that right? (nodding of head). We know there is no agreement on the ultimate effect of a warmer Earth on biological systems. Many of them will benefit, but we don’t know for sure how many will suffer. This is an area of ongoing study. Which ones are more fragile ecosystems, and which are more robust. In my view, and I’ve been to the coral reefs, I’ve seen them. Those things have been there for centuries, even thousands of years. They’ve been through ups and downs in the climate cycles, and guess what, they are still there (chuckling). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let me talk about the ice, because we are running out of time to finish all of this. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here is a failed prediction, because the Arctic ice was supposed to be gone by now. You may have heard Al Gore saying something like “the Arctic will be ice-free by 2014” or something like that. I want to call your attention, these are three lines,</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gFJQjRtBnTI/XXqgVHh8n_I/AAAAAAAABmE/EDyhEbyEPgEtgDI-rxG97hOIhQoRaYlHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528311%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="467" data-original-width="644" height="290" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gFJQjRtBnTI/XXqgVHh8n_I/AAAAAAAABmE/EDyhEbyEPgEtgDI-rxG97hOIhQoRaYlHACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Screenshot%2B%2528311%2529.png" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> that show the maximum extent, every Winter of the Arctic ice (top line), this (middle) line is the average extent over the year, and the bottom line is the lowest extent over the Summer. (<a href="https://arctic-roos.org/">see link</a> to Arctic ice graphs) They have drawn straight lines through these, because they love to draw straight lines. Well, I can draw good straight lines, too, so let’s take a look at this. See those black lines on there? Those show the ice has stabilized since 2006. What we had going on was a stable regime in the early years, then this is the one they are most alarmed about, a similar one was in Al Gore’s movie. If you ever see a graph that these guys put out, and I’ve seen Michael Mann present, and some of the others present, they will stop this chart right here at the minimum. They won’t show you this last bit out here (the area of no decline).<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AImefKs75Uc/XXqgBJRWrnI/AAAAAAAABmA/2PMuoIxuCygXzugwLT80IGSchf2es2g-gCEwYBhgL/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528311%2529-A.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="467" data-original-width="644" height="232" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AImefKs75Uc/XXqgBJRWrnI/AAAAAAAABmA/2PMuoIxuCygXzugwLT80IGSchf2es2g-gCEwYBhgL/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528311%2529-A.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Arctic Ice extent, <br />with stabilized trend shown in black</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Does that sound deceptive, to anybody besides me? What is going on here is the ice has stabilized since 2006, now 13 years. That’s a pretty cool trick, as CO2 has managed to put the gun back in the holster. So, it does not shoot the heating rays down anymore. (audience: that does not take into account what is going on in Greenland, which is definitely melting.) Really? I’m so glad you brought that up, because guess what (slide of Greenland melt hole) right there on the next slide is Greenland. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You see, what’s going on in Greenland is something called black carbon. I don’t know how many of you have lived up North where it snows, and they put stuff on the ice to make it melt. I did, I lived up there in Ohio for a while. They put black cinders on the ice and snow so the sunshine will get a little assist in melting the ice away. The bottom of that melt-hole is full of black carbon. This is from soot, from fires, from jet engines. We have had over-the-pole flights that started about, hmmm… 1970! What an interesting year, when all of that stuff started (chuckling). You can see, although they don’t want you to see this, just go online and input black ice Greenland and take a look at the videos. From aircraft flying over these things, there are thousands of these. The thing about black on ice in Greenland, is it doesn’t go away. It accumulates; every year it gets bigger and bigger. How many of you knew that, before you came in here today? The source is from Canadian forests on fire, the Chinese coal power plants, but there is another source. They actually have a black algae that grows on the ice up there. That’s one of the things they try to emphasize, so you don’t ask questions about all this black carbon that rains down up there. I can see why the ice is melting. If you go out and sprinkle black carbon. In fact, way back when I was in 4th grade (in 1963-64), we had a science class which at that time, global cooling was the big issue. They were afraid we would have icebergs in Houston. The teacher told us, and I’ll never forget this, not to worry because we now have airplanes that if we need to, can sprinkle ground up charcoal on the ice in Canada so it will all melt. So, there ya go, we didn’t have to sprinkle charcoal, the forest fires did it for free. (audience question: this is not a technical but a political issue.) I have a slide to talk about the motivation behind much of this, and I agree that a lot of this is politics. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, to the wrong causes that were identified. We know that Arctic ice is melting due to magmatic activity on the seafloor under the circum-Arctic current. Did you ever notice that the ice is melting on the Russian shore, but it is not melting on the Canadian shore? Again, a disparity in what CO2 is supposed to be doing. That is a fact, you can look that one up. The source is the area between Greenland and whatever that next island is toward Europe, the mid-Atlantic ridge passes there. The ridge has been having earthquakes and magmatic releases since about 1975 and 1980, the water warms a bit, then swirls past Russia so their ice is the part that disappears. It’s an interesting point. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Glaciers have also the same issues, they have done some studies particularly in the Alps where the melt is due to black soot. (audience question on Glacier National Park and retreating glaciers). I don’t know the causal factors there, but they had signs in the park for many, many years that said the glacier disappearing rate is such that they expect them all to be gone by year 2020. Well, we are pretty close to 2020, and guess who has taken down all of those signs now? (chuckling). (aside, it could be the western drought has reduced the humidity in Glacier Park, increasing sublimation, also drought decreases the snowfall that replenishes glaciers, also increased wildfires deposit more black soot). And speaking of glaciers, we have a new one forming in the Sierras out in California. This is the first time they have found a valley where the snow did not melt over the summer. There is a 40-foot wall of snow, and the big question is, what will happen in the next few years? It may melt away, but it may get more and more snow. That is how we start glaciers. In Glacier Park, we know that the rate of ice disappearance is the same today as it was 150 years ago. Back in 1850, they were watching all this happen, too, and it is amazing how in all these years, the ice melt rate has never <span style="background-color: white;">increased</span>. Even though the CO2 recently has gone up. So, we wonder, is CO2 lazy? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also, Mount Kilimanjaro does not have CO2 issues, but they do have more sublimation due to land changes that make the air more arid, less humid. The phrase is desertification, made it into a desert. The air is not as humid, so the physical chemistry requires more sublimation in dry air. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">More on causes of warming, that are not CO2. The funny thing is, when the IPCC put out their studies, they said we know about aerosols, and how they reflect sunshine, so they put those in the models. That took care of the (temperature) declines pretty well, but we couldn’t get anything to get the temperatures to go back up in our models. The ONLY thing we could think of, and that’s a quote, the only thing we could think of was CO2. So, they shoved that one into their models. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But, being a good American, I said, fellers, let me give you some help here. We have a list of almost a dozen things, and we won’t go through all of them today. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">see link</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> to SLB article on many causes of warming, but not CO2: "The Case Against Carbon Dioxide - Fatal Flaws")</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> One thing is, the cities have much more population, another is we are using a lot more energy per capita. I don’t know if you know, but we now use 4 billion MWh on an annual basis in electricity in the United States. That is from the Energy department (DOE), and it was zero just 100 years ago. We went from zero to 20 million barrels per day of oil, in the same time frame, 100 years. What does that look like? (slide of lights at night) It looks like this. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qxY0x9Pb8VI/XXqhlYQG9_I/AAAAAAAABmY/c8CWfiTMGqgey4QAvxqbFQNckc8WN6UeACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528312%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="243" data-original-width="453" height="171" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qxY0x9Pb8VI/XXqhlYQG9_I/AAAAAAAABmY/c8CWfiTMGqgey4QAvxqbFQNckc8WN6UeACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528312%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Composite image, N. America at night<br />source: NASA</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: right;"> This is a composite satellite photo of the United States at night showing all of the lights. You probably cannot see this, but up here this is Canada, and this is Hudson Bay which is jet-black. One hundred years ago, the whole thing would have looked like that. All of that energy, and we know as engineers that energy cannot be destroyed, it must be transferred somewhere, it has to go somewhere. That’s a lot of MWh, and Btus from burning 20 million barrels of oil per day (note, that is 7.3 billion barrels per year). That is an incredible amount of heat that must be released into space, and if you take a look, this area up in here (East Coast and New England) is an area where the warming is occurring over the past 100 years. That is where most of the industry and the people are, up in the East, and that’s why, in my view, they are measuring the heat coming off of the buildings. They are not measuring the effect of CO2. (question on Europe electricity, from nuclear plants and the huge amount of reject heat from them.) That’s right, nuclear plants have a low thermal efficiency, that is offset somewhat by not losing heat out the smokestack. Roughly anywhere from 75 percent to as low as 65 percent of the total energy created in the reactor goes off in the cooling tower. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(question on why the US map earlier has red areas and blue areas, how does that fit in? Canada was dark at the red area.) (second question on why the dark areas on the map from space, in the West had so much warming?) Yes, the next slide answers that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here you go, boys, this is it. It’s amazing what a drought will do. I’m going to show a slide here in a minute of creating a false impression of global warming, or even local warming. Everybody knows, especially if you’ve ever been out in the desert when it rains, well, we pray for rain because it’s going to be cooler. Even here in Houston, the other day we had a nice little rain storm, and it cooled things off. It’s a very pronounced effect, and evaporative cooling is the technical term for it. What we have found, in looking through all the little towns that I’ve been looking at, is some of those in the West, especially in the Rocky Mountains and in California, show a huge warming. I kept thinking how could that be? They are small towns, they are far from any big cities. Then, we look at the drought record in those states, and find out that these states right here, and I only listed a few of them, Montana, Utah, Oregon, California, showed enormous warming, but they also had a very strong drought. It makes a difference, as we will see in a minute. We’re going to play see-saw like on the playground when we were kids. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hDL8LUU7lM4/XXqiWipktnI/AAAAAAAABmk/blOsCwTc3XI-99PXVqQm4-44bCXOBQ6JgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528319%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="834" height="228" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hDL8LUU7lM4/XXqiWipktnI/AAAAAAAABmk/blOsCwTc3XI-99PXVqQm4-44bCXOBQ6JgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Screenshot%2B%2528319%2529.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>PDSI for Wyoming and Montana -<br />Data from NOAA</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This PDSI is a measure of drought intensity (Palmer Drought Severity Index) if you want to look that up. Some have a negative PDSI, and those show a cooling trend. It’s more related to drought and rain than it is to CO2. Here’s a couple of charts that show that, these are taken right from NOAA’s website, you can do this yourself. I’ll give you all the web locations if you want. What these charts show, the green bars show how much rain occurred, over years 1910 to 2019. The yellow bars are the drought periods. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The trendline down means more drought, this state is Wyoming, that one is Montana, they both show much more drought. So, of course(!) they are going to show a warming trend. It has nothing to do with CO2. You can do this on state after <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W5FjL_rLseE/XXqjWKL3D-I/AAAAAAAABmw/zBuNz9wfWA41Mqfun8bCCROEoGwFXafRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528320%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="885" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W5FjL_rLseE/XXqjWKL3D-I/AAAAAAAABmw/zBuNz9wfWA41Mqfun8bCCROEoGwFXafRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528320%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>PDSI for Utah and Oregon<br />Data from NOAA</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
state after state, which is what I am currently in the process of doing right now. It was an eye-opener to see this. Now, they do mention drought a little bit in the IPCC reports, but they gloss right over it. They hope that you don’t know this!! (chuckling). Here’s some more states, Utah and Oregon, again trend lines going down (more drought). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here are two graphs (Alabama and Arkansas) with trend lines up, because they had more drought in the early years and more rain after 1965. This year, 1965, have you ever heard of 1965 in any of their reports? That’s kind of the balance point right now on the length of the line they are drawing. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a_nSGsStENI/XXqjmFVFzFI/AAAAAAAABm4/urHWMK9scCgomSqRtaNpOFK2TkqC-KnXQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528321%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="880" height="173" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a_nSGsStENI/XXqjmFVFzFI/AAAAAAAABm4/urHWMK9scCgomSqRtaNpOFK2TkqC-KnXQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528321%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>PDSI for Alabama and Arkansas<br />Data from NOAA</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, anything that happened before 1965, such as more drought, tends to skew the line upward when you draw a trend. There are people who claim that they have fiddled with the data by doing things on one side of 1965 that they don’t do on the other. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Next, the pollution laws. One of the things that happens that causes the air to be cleaner, we call the aerosol content. Starting in 1970, we had the Environmental Protection Act passed, and President Nixon signed it. The EPA agency was established, then in 1973 the Clean Air Act was passed. Starting after that, in 1975 and 1980, the air began getting cleaner in many polluted cities across the United States. It took a little longer to happen around the globe, but many cities now are cleaner. Notably, China is not. I got to work in some of the overseas cities and it was very polluted over there in their air. I’ve seen it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The EPA will tell you how many tons of pollutants they have removed from the skies. What that does is actually allow more sunshine to come down and warm up the ground. So, to that extent, there is another causal factor that is not CO2. Way out in the desert, it’s probably not an issue but on that East Coast, it is. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The next one is very big, I want to mention Svensmark and the CERN experiment. This has to do with the magnetic field of the Sun deflecting the GCRs, galactic cosmic rays away from the Earth. We now know, after experiments at the CERN atom smasher, that they do create condensation nuclei in the atmosphere when they hit. This correlates with sunspots; the more sunspots, the warmer the Earth gets. The fewer sunspots, the colder it gets. This is the mechanism. Finally, after 20 years of doing this, the IPCC actually admitted that that is actually true, but they called it an inconsequential mechanism. And I ask them, do you fellows know about the Little Ice Age, when there were no sunspots for decades? It got a little cold (chuckling). They don’t like to talk to me. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And then we have this graph, the clouds are in blue in two sections. Upper is the clouds representing 30 percent reflection <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CTyhCPiwmO0/XXqkORmau6I/AAAAAAAABnE/B3X-oR_1JKojUwGt2ycMv3ZpTOkqvqWIACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Climate%2B-%2Bcloud%2Beffect%2B-%2B1%2Bpct%2Bchange.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="489" height="242" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CTyhCPiwmO0/XXqkORmau6I/AAAAAAAABnE/B3X-oR_1JKojUwGt2ycMv3ZpTOkqvqWIACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Climate%2B-%2Bcloud%2Beffect%2B-%2B1%2Bpct%2Bchange.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Solar Energy change with 1 percent<br />change in cloud cover</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
of the incoming sunlight, which is what they say. The albedo is 30 percent. That means only about 953 W/m2 get through. If we have only a one percent change in cloud cover, we end up with 13 W/m2 difference coming into the Earth to warm it up. And that is only important if you know that what they are claiming for the entire effect of CO2 doubling, is only about 1.5 W/m2. So, the point here is, and I hope you take this one home and think about it, if the cloud cover changes only one percent, that is a ten times bigger effect than what they are claiming for CO2 in the whole big scheme of things. We know for a fact that the clouds are changing, because the sunspots have changed. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We also have more local humidity from watering lawns and such things, and cooling towers. That is why here in Houston, and I grew up here, the nights are warm. That is why if you go outside at night on the same day, or have a buddy in the desert, say Phoenix, or right outside of Phoenix because it is a big city, out in the desert it gets much colder at night. Much colder. The CO2 is the same in both places, so what is the difference? Humidity. To the extent these western cities have increased in population and increased their use of water for irrigation, lawns, and even crop circles. All of these are putting water vapor into the air, creating humidity, and that is causing the nights to be warmer. Sure enough, it we look at the tiny towns that I’m looking at, and only the nighttime minimum temperatures, they are getting warmer in the West. There you go. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another cause is just from population expanding, such as a thermometer out in Katy, Texas where it was out in the country when we were kids. Now, it’s sort of in the city. If there was a measuring station there, its attributes have changed from small town rural to more suburban. That will increase your temperature. It has nothing to do with CO2. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The settled science is next. This will have real equations and some engineering. They have a thing called the transient sensitivity to CO2. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-upzvxvGgzds/XXqnQBii-dI/AAAAAAAABnQ/jVrzxNiP2NY_0M0GpH8Yv2if5EFBHo_lgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528322%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="458" data-original-width="813" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-upzvxvGgzds/XXqnQBii-dI/AAAAAAAABnQ/jVrzxNiP2NY_0M0GpH8Yv2if5EFBHo_lgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528322%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>CO2 Sensitivity Calculation </b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
What that means is, over the short term of a few decades, how the temperature will change, it is dT/dCO2. There is another one called the Equilibrium sensitivity, and we will talk about that maybe if we have time. Here is the equation, change in Temperature is equal to some constant K times the natural log of the ratio of CO2 concentrations in ppm at the end and at the beginning. We can use this and work out the value of K for about 0.7 degrees warming if we start about here and go all the way up. If we use 400 ppm and 300 ppm just for round numbers, we get a value of 2.4. Then they talk about how much warming will we get for a doubling of CO2? We end up with 1.7 degrees, roughly. That’s from 275 ppm in 1850, up to 550 ppm. Where does the uncertainty come in?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Take a look at that chart! (refer earlier to global temperature anomaly chart) What if we take values from 1910, to 2015, the temperature rise is 1.1 degrees C. We get an entirely different value for K. And, what if we instead take the values from 1945 down to 1975, well now it’s a negative number and they don’t want to talk to you!! That shows that the trend has the wrong slope. I’m a bad boy, because I talk to them like that. We can also take the zero point from 1880, roughly, up to 2015, still the 0.7 rise but much greater CO2 difference. Yet a different value of K. What does that mean? They have no clue what they are doing. They have a range of what temperatures will do for a CO2 doubling, where, I think I’ve seen numbers from 1.5 to 5.5. Those are degrees C. That is why. Then, in the same breath, they will smile at you and say, “The science is settled,” in their deepest Walter Cronkite voice. They have NO clue what they are doing here, and they admit it, it’s in their publications. They are absolutely guessing on this. This data is so bad, the analytical techniques are so bad, that in my view, I would hope that nobody in here ever designs a chemical plant or a refinery using those techniques, because if you do, you will end up talking to an attorney like me who handles engineering matters. And, you will be saying, Help me, sir, we just blew up a billion dollars’ worth of stuff, and we killed some people. You cannot do that in our world. We have to use real data and real science. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why are the IPCC and the others doing this? This is my viewpoint, but it is shared by an awful lot of people. First, there was a fear of running out of fossil fuels, as somebody brought up. But, that turned out to be wrong as the peak oil scare fizzled. We found out how to get more oil out of the ground. And much more natural gas, too. There is also this thing called Western guilt, because our societies have benefitted from using fossil fuels while a lot of countries didn’t have that chance. Next, the desire to have a wealth transfer from the wealthy countries that had the fossil fuel benefit, to the other countries that don’t. This is exactly what the Paris Accord is all about. I don’t know how many of you have read it, I read it to see what was in there. There is a world government established, there are transfer payments to be made, in named countries. They had to sign their name, Yes we will do this. There are the recipient countries, and you can think of who they are, the ones with the lowest GDP on Earth, they were absolutely going to sign that thing and say that global warming is real. Hey, you bring the money!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, that’s my view of what is going on there. The politics of it, that’s amazing. However, I cannot talk politics in an AIChE meeting. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Is there more uncertainty? We only talked about the uncertainty about CO2. There is a whole list, where any issue you look at is rife with uncertainty. Sea Level Rise, they abbreviate that SLR, we talked about that. How can you measure it? How much is siltation responsible for? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sea surface temperature, this is another one where they have no clue what they are talking about. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the early days, they measured the water temperature by sailing ships dropping a bucket over the side and pulling it up. The captain would have an idea, after they put a thermometer in it, of are we getting close to Antarctica or not? Then a little later, they had ships that pulled water in as engine cooling water, now we have the ARGO buoy system (and to some extent, satellite data). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, I can stay and answer questions, but that concludes the presentation. So, thank you very much, and I really enjoyed that. Thank you. (applause). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">End transcript. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(I was happy to stay after and chat with those present; a most enjoyable and interesting discussion time. One person in particular was quite complimentary, telling us that he appreciated the presentation and me not using the words Alarmist and Denier, since those are inflammatory. I greatly appreciate those remarks. As best I could tell from the transcript, I did not say those words. -- Roger)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>UPDATE 9-16-2019</b>: The temperature d</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ata has multiple issues; and the a</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">nalysis is riddled with errors. To mention only a few issues, v</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ery few data points for tiny towns in the US span the entire 109 years (1910 – 2018) with less than 4 percent missing data points. A r</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ecent study of NOAA records that is in progress (Sowell) shows only approximately 115 such tiny towns. This is a very small number out of more than 100,000 locations in the NOAA database for the continental US.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also, the large cities with UHI effect (urban heat island, i.e. Goodridge graphs) are too few to skew the long-term trends upward. Adjustments to the data are responsible for 0.5 degrees C warming (note only 0.7 degrees C total warming from 1965-2015). The reputed w</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">arming is certainly man-made, because it is created by including, then adjusting, multiple towns and cities with short term data, infilling missing data, and splicing together multiple short-term records. -- end update </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-64285048142425529042019-09-06T06:32:00.000-07:002019-09-06T06:32:28.546-07:00Speaker at AIChE - STS in Houston on Global Warming<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Is Global Warming Just BS (Bad Science)?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jMXRRo4NC5s/XXJa365jlqI/AAAAAAAABjY/ec1Mjlc2xFYwvoisRm7x5gr_e0MN383SACLcBGAs/s1600/image1%2B%25281%2529.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jMXRRo4NC5s/XXJa365jlqI/AAAAAAAABjY/ec1Mjlc2xFYwvoisRm7x5gr_e0MN383SACLcBGAs/s400/image1%2B%25281%2529.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today, I have the honor of being the person behind the podium at the First Friday Networking Lunch of the South Texas Section of AIChE, the professional society for chemical engineers in the US. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The topic is A Skeptic's View of Man-Made Global Warming. It is a great pleasure to accept the invitation to speak that was extended to me. It is even better to see the society has offered a skeptic, like me, the chance to present my views (and the views of hundreds of my colleagues). The local section, South Texas Section, has at the moment taken a turn toward full belief in the man-made aspect of global warming, specifically the perceived need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to save the planet. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In March of this year, for example, the dinner meeting speaker gave a presentation on the horrors of global warming, and the steps he personally takes as a research professor to reduce CO2 emissions. I attended that meeting (<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/rebuttal-to-aiche-presentation-on.html">see link</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/questions-for-climate-change-believers.html">see link</a>) and asked one question at the end of the presentation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today's presentation is limited to 45 minutes, so there is no way to cover the many aspects of why the data is so bad as to not be fit for purpose, why the analysis techniques are improper, and how the gross uncertainties in the many issues render completely wrong a conclusion of imminent catastrophe. In short, CO2 is innocent. Any and all efforts to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere will have zero or negligible effect on global temperatures. However, today's presentation will give both an overview of the topics, and some technical details on issues such as inconsistent warming, bad data, bad analysis, and gross uncertainty in what is called "settled science." I call it BS, for Bad Science. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is plenty of data (and I will present some of this) that shows the tiniest towns in the US have not warmed in over 100 years. In fact, most of the small towns have actually cooled. The data is from NOAA, the National Climate Data Center. The time span for this data reaches back to the 1890s, and extends to the present. However, few of the sites have such long data, and even fewer have nearly complete data. My current research is to identify and analyze the smallest towns with long records, less than 4 percent missing data, far from urban heat island influence, and well-distributed geographically. Enough work has been done to conclude that the tiny towns are not warming, in fact, most are cooling or show zero trend. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That, alone, invalidates the premise that CO2 increase has also caused the globe to warm. The tiny towns also had CO2 increase over the decades, but they did not warm. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">More on this will be forthcoming, as this research will be presented for publication.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-22574483105476899952019-07-17T09:05:00.000-07:002019-09-25T11:02:26.442-07:00Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant to Close<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Another one calls it quits - Losing Money</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtwIFJH4tXM/U5vUw2-MiFI/AAAAAAAAAvE/5gCY44cZCPY8ALpXyTmORPwOvQJHPpn7wCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/photo.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="881" data-original-width="568" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtwIFJH4tXM/U5vUw2-MiFI/AAAAAAAAAvE/5gCY44cZCPY8ALpXyTmORPwOvQJHPpn7wCPcBGAYYCw/s320/photo.PNG" width="206" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Three Mile Island nuclear plants,<br />
containment domes as white circles at top right<br />
credit: NRC</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania has one reactor still running. The other one, the one that melted down after only one year of operation, has been closed with its radioactive fuel core removed. Now, almost 40 years later, the financial losses are overwhelming, the government refused to provide tax dollars as still more subsidies, and the owners have announced the plant's closure in September, 2019. (UPDATE: It closed on Sept 20, 2019. Cheers for another one closed, forever. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So much for the nuclear cheerleader mantra that "nuclear plants last for 60 years." No, they don't. SLB has a list of the US' closed nuclear plants, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/us-nuclear-reactors-shutdown-years.html">see link.</a> Three Mile Island will join that list if and when it actually closes down, in approximately 10 weeks from today. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At SLB, the opinion is that many more nuclear reactors in the US will shut down in the next few years, approximately half of the existing fleet, as the electricity market changes for the better, and nuclear plants cannot compete. The combination of old plants, high operating costs, and tremendous pressure from low-cost wind and natural gas power, makes shutting them down the only practical solution. However, a few states (notably Ohio) have chosen to give even more subsidies to their nuclear plants to keep them running and the workers employed. One wonders how much largesse actually exists in the legislature and governor's office, when the plants require many hundreds of million $ invested to remain within the Federal safety regulations. Who will purchase bonds to fund the investments, when at best the plants will run for only 10 years?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, what actually happens when a nuclear power plant shuts down? How does the grid cope? Quite well, actually. We have seen this demonstrated time and time again, in California, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many of the remaining power plants each increase their output to cover the load that the nuclear plant formerly supplied. At night especially, some plants will not reduce output as much as when the nuclear plant was operating. The grid remains stable, the customers are happy, and a high-cost provider is removed from the generation mix. This is how regulated capitalism is supposed to work, the most efficient survive, and the least efficient fall by the wayside. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One last point, about nuclear plants supposedly being zero-carbon sources of power. No, they aren't, especially when they shut down. That Three Mile Island plant will soon be a big load on the grid, drawing power 24 hours per day, to keep spent fuel cooled and various other needs. That power intake is from the grid as a whole, which of course includes coal-fired power and natural gas-fired power. That is not unique to Three Mile Island, as every closed nuclear plant continues to draw power from the grid in various amounts. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-37547260083688994062019-07-16T10:23:00.000-07:002019-07-16T10:23:55.349-07:00Bigger Wind Turbines Onshore and Offshore in 2019<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Wind Has Won</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Two major events in both offshore and onshore wind occurred in 2019; both have enormous (some would say HUUUGE) implications for renewable energy worldwide. The first event is the installation of the largest-ever offshore wind turbine generator (WTG), the GE-built Haliade 12X in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Yes, it is an onshore installation, not offshore, but that is for ease of access during testing and verification purposes. The 12X has a nominal output of 12 MW, and a claimed annual capacity factor of 63 percent. The economics of the 12 MW WTG are very favorable; such that a sales price of 5 cents US per kWh allows a nice return on the investment. A major wind project offshore in EU has announced they will use the 12 MW turbines. <a href="https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine" style="color: #de7008;">see link</a> for details of the GE Haliade 12X. </span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Meanwhile, GE has done it again. This time in the onshore industry, where a major limit to increased size and better economics for WTG has been the inability to transport longer blades from manufacturer to the wind turbine site. The US Department of Energy recently sent out a call for ideas to solve the transportation problem. GE has since (March, 2019) announced their 5 MW WTG, the Cypress model, that has blades fabricated in two parts for ease of shipping. At the site, the two parts are joined for installation and operation. This also is huge for onshore WTG, since the almost double output brings down the sales price of electricity. Adequate returns are provided at present with 4.3 cents per kWh from the 2.5-3 MW size WTG. The 5 MW Cypress WTG will allow an adequate return at something below the 4.3 cents, most likely in the 2.5-3 cents per kWh range. <a href="https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/onshore-wind/turbines/cypress-platform" style="color: #de7008;">see link</a> for details of the Cypress 5 MW. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6;">We can expect that many older WTG projects with 1 MW size and smaller will soon upgrade to the 5 MW WTG. The repowering projects have excellent economics because the infrastructure is mostly in place. Bigger turbines reach up higher into better wind, and provide a greater annual capacity. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6;">As I have said often before, wind has won.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f6;"><br /></span></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-41589139411059552812019-06-22T10:27:00.003-07:002019-06-23T07:44:55.960-07:00Offshore Wind Sells Power at €44/MWh<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Wind Industry Will Fly from here on. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The lowest price, so far, for offshore wind sales may just be the €44/ MWh that was announced this week. The project, offshore Dunkirk, France, will be 600 MW and employ wind turbines with 12-13 MW capacity each. Those are the largest at this point in time. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.offshorewind.biz/2019/06/20/dunkirk-strike-price-is-eur-44-mwh/">see link</a> to article describing the project. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In US currency, that is approximately 5 cents per kWh delivered. As stated before on SLB, wind has won. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Future projects will most likely, almost assuredly, use the largest wind turbines available since the economics are overwhelmingly favorable. They cost less to install per MW, and have better output via higher capacity factors. Also, there are fewer of the larger turbines, so maintenance costs are lower. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is beyond the turning point the industry has long sought: sales price of 10 cents per kWh. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From here on, the investments will be heavy into offshore wind. The prospects for onshore wind are more limited, since a large hurdle is transporting blades to the installation site. The very large turbine blades for 12 MW wind turbines simply cannot pass under the various bridges. Of course, the open ocean has no such restrictions. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's a good day for the renewable energy industry. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YIWO2DppBZs/XQ-M3rYkaWI/AAAAAAAABiY/knZMF08zhggYG6FWDnKjuLmmaEEb98iuQCLcBGAs/s1600/wind_blades-Sandia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1238" data-original-width="1600" height="247" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YIWO2DppBZs/XQ-M3rYkaWI/AAAAAAAABiY/knZMF08zhggYG6FWDnKjuLmmaEEb98iuQCLcBGAs/s320/wind_blades-Sandia.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Sandia National Lab, 50 MW offshore wind turbine concept<br />Blades are downwind of tower, blades flex in very high winds<br />to allow continued operation.</span></b> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Update: 6-23-19; The offshore wind turbines are especially attractive in Europe, where the grid operators typically reduce natural gas-fired power plants as the wind power increases. That is a savings of very expensive LNG that is vaporized to provide fuel to the power plants. With LNG selling at $8 to $10 per million Btu, the electric customers should (and perhaps will) see a reduction in electric bills. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The future is very bright for offshore wind in many areas of the world. Northern Europe, US East Coast, US West Coast, and the East Coast of Asia are all developing wind projects offshore. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-33cjsudWDwY/XQ-OvAPPLYI/AAAAAAAABik/4Ehmd0VOjWM6QwWLrT8u1rrRvXtwg7SdwCLcBGAs/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528238%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="885" height="196" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-33cjsudWDwY/XQ-OvAPPLYI/AAAAAAAABik/4Ehmd0VOjWM6QwWLrT8u1rrRvXtwg7SdwCLcBGAs/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528238%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Floating Spar mooring system, artist's concept<br />
for Hywind, Scotland offshore wind farm<br />
credit: Statoil ASA Environmental Statement</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The largest turbines are not yet here, as SLB reported earlier, Sandia National Labs has a design for a 50 MW wind turbine, with flexible blades that bend with the strongest winds. <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/off-shore-wind-turbines-mimic-palm-trees.html">see link</a> to SLB article, and <a href="https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/big_blades/">see link</a> to Sandia publication on the Segmented Ultralight Morphing Rotor. (see photo at right)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The economics of such a wind turbine will be very attractive. However, there are engineering issues to resolve with a large weight balanced at the top of a long and slender tower. I suspect the answer will be, at least in part, a tower that is designed to sway in the wind, like a palm tree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another very good possibility is to employ the floating spar mooring technology as the Hywind project in Scotland uses. The floating spars also sway in the strongest winds. See <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils.html">this link</a> for the SLB article on the Hywind floating spar wind farm. -- end update</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-51387959747944595962019-06-02T08:25:00.000-07:002019-06-02T08:25:04.744-07:00Happy Day - Pilgrim Nuclear Plant Closes Forever<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Uneconomic Nuclear Plants Should Close</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is always satisfying to watch predictions one has made come to pass. I am on record (<a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils.html">see link</a>) as stating half of the US nuclear power plants (at least, those still operating) will close in 10 years, with the other half closing in another 10 years. That works out to roughly 5 reactors per year, on average. This article is about one that closed just two days ago, the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P9o0LgO81PU/XPPnktXzQHI/AAAAAAAABh8/zg81m9LTlMwsDWtywVDgerlR2_IkRy8cwCLcBGAs/s1600/pilgrim%2Bnuclear%2Bplant%2B-%2BNRC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="186" data-original-width="250" height="297" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P9o0LgO81PU/XPPnktXzQHI/AAAAAAAABh8/zg81m9LTlMwsDWtywVDgerlR2_IkRy8cwCLcBGAs/s400/pilgrim%2Bnuclear%2Bplant%2B-%2BNRC.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, MA -- photo from NRC</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The current quote: "PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — The Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth has permanently shut down after 47 years of generating electricity, bring to a close the era of nuclear power in Massachusetts. The final shutdown occurred at 5:28 p.m. Friday (31 May 2019)." see news article at <a href="https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/05/31/pilgrim-nuclear-power-plant-plymouth-massachusetts/">this link</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My prediction from August 4, 2017: "The essential facts in the US are a great number of nuclear plants will retire; many coal-fired plants will retire, many natural gas plants will be built; and a great number of wind turbine generators will be built. Within 20 years, almost every one of the 98 nuclear plants in the US will retire. Half of those will be shut down within 10 years." (quoting the SLB article "Offshore Wind Turbine Project – Statoil’s Hywind Scotland; </span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A Positive Viewpoint" <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils.html">see link</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, what happened to cause the Pilgrim plant to shut down, nearly 13 years before its operating license expires? This plant was given the green light by the NRC to extend its operating life beyond the initial 40 years, with a 20 year extension. Nuclear cheerleaders often claim that nuclear plants run 60 years, yet we have never, ever, seen one operate that long. The usual circumstances occurred, the same ones that caused other plants to retire early. Those circumstances are an inability to operate profitably in the modern era with low natural gas prices, and very low renewable (wind especially) electricity. The news articles are filled with report after report of nuclear plants presenting their bid for future electricity to the grid, and not being competitive. The reasons, of course, are the high operating costs, even on a cash basis and not including capital charges. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The nuclear plant owners typically turn to the state governments to plead for yet more subsidies to keep their plants running, and sometimes, those pleas are successful. And then other times, they fail. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant failed to obtain taxpayer subsidies, and it is now closed. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, what alternatives to nuclear plant owners have? Can they invest a few billion to reduce operating costs, perhaps increase power output and produce more income from the same asset? Those have been tried, sometimes with success and at least one notable and dismal fiasco: the SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego, CA). The fiasco involved lies to the NRC about the new steam generators (four of them), when the design was very different but the owner lied to the NRC that the design had only minor changes and no need for the costly and lengthy review and approval process. (The new steam generators, vertical U-tube heat exchangers, had more tubes, tubes with smaller diameters, and a different vibration suppression design). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem Pilgrim had, as I see it, is too few years remaining in which to recover the investment from any effort to increase revenues. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The same scenario is playing out at the aging, inefficient, high-cost nuclear plants in the US. Plant after plant is crying to the government for more subsidies (on top of the numerous other subsidies already in place). As governments see that shutting a nuclear plant has very little impact, if any, on the local economy, the pleas for bailouts will be refused. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As an aside, no one granted the oil refineries any extensions, no subsidies, no fiscal help at all when nearly half the refineries shut down in the 1980s. There were thousands and thousands of jobs at stake there, too, just like the nuclear cheerleaders are claiming today as their big reason for more subsidies. The refineries shut down, nearly 150 of them across the country. There was a temporary difficulty for the workers, the engineers, and management, but we all survived. That's the way it is supposed to work in a market economy. The more efficient weed out the lesser. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nuclear plants have had their day in the sunshine. The sunset is here for many, many of them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is indeed, a happy day. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-64760368865739732592019-04-12T09:10:00.000-07:002019-04-12T09:10:15.268-07:00Gen IV Nuclear Plants - AIChE Presentation<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Gen IV Designs Have Too Many Serious Flaws</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This article follows the previous article (<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/on-generation-iv-nuclear-plants.html">see link</a>) with my recollections and comments on the nuclear power presentation at the AIChE dinner meeting on 4-11-2019 in Houston, Texas.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The presenter, Dr. Pavel V. Tsvetkov, seemed quite knowledgeable and sincere in his views. To his credit, he mentioned a few negative points for nuclear energy in general, and specific points to some of the designs he presented. He did, however, say some things that were either unrealistic, or entirely too optimistic in my view. And, that is ok; I believe we need optimists in the world, as long as their views are filtered and judged through a sober process that adequately considers safety, costs, and better alternatives. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The questions in my previous article remained unanswered for the most part, as they were not asked. A few others in attendance did ask a similar question on the safety, and spent fuel, and plant size or capacity. But, nothing on subsidies, capacity factor in operation, construction costs, operating costs, or decommissioning costs. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A few of the presenter's points made me pause and hope that no one ever, ever builds one of these things. More on that below. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In no particular order, then, here are some points I recall that seemed true about nuclear energy's drawbacks. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- The entire fission nuclear process is carbon-free only in the operating reactor portion. All the other aspects are performed now, and likely in the future, with a large degree of fossil fuel use. Those other aspects include, but are probably not limited to, uranium mining, uranium ore processing and concentration, uranium fuel preparation and delivery, constructing a plant, decommissioning a plant, and spent fuel cooling, handling and monitoring. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Nuclear reactors have some ways to produce electricity other than boiling water or heating a gas, but the engineering challenges are simply too great to spend time on these. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Nuclear plants can be built to follow the grid load, but the costs are greater. This is a crucial point, because already high costs are increased even more as the plant reduces output to follow the load. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Next, here are some points the presenter made that are absolutely false, in my experience. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Existing nuclear plants will run for 100 years. No, they won't. These plants shut down almost always before the 40th year of operation. The ones that keep running are crying desperately for more government subsidies because they are losing money. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- SMR, or small modular reactors of various designs, will be very low-cost. He stated they will be built in factories just like cars are built. That is certainly not going to happen, as the need for electrical plants simply is not on the same scale as automobile sales. Automobile sales are in the millions of units per year. Power plant sales are in the few hundreds of plants per year. No economy of production volume will change those economics. For example, one can calculate that for a 40 year life, replacing only the natural gas and coal-fired plants in the US requires approximately 60 new plants each year. If these were small enough, say 50 MWe output as envisioned for small modular reactors, we can increase that to 300 plants per year. That is nowhere close to the millions per year required to achieve economy of scale through increased production volume. Instead, the economics work against one, as smaller units cost much more per quantity of output. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Molten salt reactors, such as molten fluoride with dissolved thorium or uranium, are intrinsically safe. No, they are not. He showed a conceptual flow diagram that made me cringe. The molten, 900 degree C radioactive bath is pumped from the reactor vessel through a heat exchanger, where a heat transfer fluid is heated. That heat transfer fluid is then pumped through a second heat exchanger, where water is boiled to make steam for a turbine. The heat transfer fluid is then pumped back around in a loop to the first heat exchanger. The cringe-worthy aspect is the fact that heat exchangers eventually leak. There will be heat exchanger fluid flow either into the radioactive molten salt, or the other way round with the molten salt injected into the heat exchanger fluid. One picks one, or the other by choice of operating pressures in the heat exchanger. Either way, that is some serious bad news when (not IF) the leaks occur. As proof, one need only look at the heat exchanger leaks that occur periodically in the existing nuclear reactor fleet; and note soberly that such a leak was what caused the San Onofre Generating Station (SONGS) to shut down permanently. That was "only" a radioactive steam leak. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another serious drawback is the pumping of that radioactive, molten fluoride salt. Pumps leak, and having that material leak onto the concrete floor is more than a bit troublesome. There will also be valves in the lines, and valves also leak. Who wants radioactive, molten fluoride salt dripping from a valve, making a puddle to step in or over?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Gen IV nuclear plants can be used to produce fresh water via desalination. No, they won't. The economics will not allow such a thing. Even if desalination is ever necessary, solar thermal plants have a huge economic advantage over the incredibly expensive and dangerous nuclear plants. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Molten metal Gen IV nuclear plants will operate at high temperatures, therefore high thermal cycle efficiencies, and will be safe. No, the same issues exist as described above with pumping molten salts: it is extremely difficult and dangerous to pump hot, molten sodium, and the same for hot, molten lead. Sodium reacts explosively with contact with humid air, and lead fumes cause all manner of brain damage in humans. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Gen IV reactors will be ideal for supplying process heat in refineries and petrochemical plants, also chemical plants. No, they won't. The inherent dangers in such process plants simply will not be improved by the presence of a nuclear plant, whether for electricity or process heat production. Instead, having a nuclear plant on the premises will make emergency responses much, much more hazardous. Unfortunately, refineries and other process plants sometimes have operating upsets, fires, and explosions that require emergency response personnel to enter and handle the problems. Who wants to speculate on the incredible situation where the plant is on fire, but the nuclear plant is so close to the fire that a radiation release is not only possible, but very likely. No, thanks. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There may be more issues to write about and discuss, but here ends the article for today. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<br />Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-85493604223949499072019-04-11T13:25:00.001-07:002019-04-12T19:55:23.192-07:00On Generation IV Nuclear Plants<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Safer and Cheaper, or Just Make-Work Projects?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Tonight, 4-11-2019, the South Texas Section of AIChE will have the monthly dinner meeting, at which the presentation will discuss the research and status of Generation IV nuclear power plants. This topic is the result, most likely, of the mis-guided belief by the current Section leadership that man-made climate change requires non-carbon-based electric power generation. Therefore, they say, more nuclear plants should be built. And, since no one can deny that the existing crop of nuclear power plants are far too dangerous and far too costly, they see a need for a new generation of nuclear designs. This article poses a few questions I would ask, given the opportunity, about these planet-saving Gen IV nuclear power plants. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What is a Gen IV plant? These are, according to the NRC, nuclear plant designs that do not use light water as a moderator in the reactor. At present, the existing plants use boiling water, or high pressure water in the reactor core as neutron moderators. These have been shown to be far too expensive, as stated above. The Gen IV plants will use various other things, such as graphite spheres in a high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR), molten fluoride salt in the reactor (MSR), or various molten or liquid metals in the reactor (molten lead, molten sodium, e.g.) . </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The questions, for now, include these: What is the safety for Gen IV? Will these plants require subsidies? What is the on-line capacity factor, or reliability of Gen IV? What is the cost to construct? What is the cost to operate? What is the cost to decommission? What are the issues with long-term spent fuel?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Safety</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will Gen IV reactors be safe, so safe that there is no longer an absolute need for the US government to provide damage payments for a catastrophic nuclear incident? At present, every reactor enjoys such protection under the Price-Anderson Act. Insurance companies refuse to insure nuclear plants, above a modest amount that is required by federal law. Will these plants have materials of construction that operate reliably and safely for decade after decade? We note that molten fluoride salts had serious metal cracking and embrittlement in earlier tests, are there proven alloys today that provide a safe operating system?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subsidies</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will Gen IV plants require the numerous subsidies that current generation of light water reactors have? SLB has articles on the numerous subsidies, such as liability for radiation leaks via the Price-Anderson Act, construction loan guarantees, new reactor direct subsidies for the first 10 years of operation, making lawsuits during construction almost impossible, and others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Capacity Factor</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will Gen IV reactors run at 90 percent output year after year, for 40 years or more? Will these exotic materials, molten lead, molten sodium, molten fluoride salts, create operating problems that shut the plant down routinely? Test reactors over the years have had very serious drawbacks with pumping such materials, to name just one. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Cost to Construct </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will Gen IV plants be built at a low cost, so they can actually compete in the electricity market? We see that pressurized water reactors now have an outrageous cost, of $12 billion for a 1000 MWe output. How can anyone know what the costs to build will be? The industry has time after time given low-ball initial costs, then see the actual costs balloon to 3, 4, and 5 times that initial cost. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Cost to Operate</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will Gen IV plants have a low cost to operate, so that they can actually compete in the market? We see today that plant after plant in the US cannot compete, even on their cash costs. Current plants are shutting down, or crying to the government for more and more subsidies to keep the plants operating. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Cost to Decommission</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will Gen IV plants require billions of dollars, and decades of time to decommission when the plants finally close? Who provides that money? Will it be a government subsidy, like the light water reactors now enjoy?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b> Long-term Issues with Spent Fuel</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Will the Gen IV reactors have spent fuel that must be stored, guarded, and cooled for centuries? What are those radioactive byproducts, and what are the toxicity issues? What requirements will be made to ensure many generations are safe from deadly radiation from these plants?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These questions will suffice, for now. I hope to ask a question or two.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">UPDATE: The meeting concluded, my thoughts and comments are on the next post at <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/gen-iv-nuclear-plants-aiche-presentation.html">this link</a>. end update 4-12-2019</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-49682646415625703872019-03-28T10:06:00.000-07:002019-03-28T10:06:44.213-07:00Meltdown Message - A Little Humility Needed<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Nuclear Can and Still Does Melt Down</b></span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtwIFJH4tXM/U5vUw2-MiFI/AAAAAAAAAvE/5gCY44cZCPY8ALpXyTmORPwOvQJHPpn7wCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/photo.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="881" data-original-width="568" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtwIFJH4tXM/U5vUw2-MiFI/AAAAAAAAAvE/5gCY44cZCPY8ALpXyTmORPwOvQJHPpn7wCPcBGAYYCw/s320/photo.PNG" width="206" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant<br />courtesy Google Maps</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today, March 28, marks forty years to the day since the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant melted down in 1979 in Pennsylvania, USA. It was a sobering reminder of the incredible danger associated with building nuclear power plants. I remember it well, as a young </span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">process engineer working in a chemical plant on the Houston Ship Channel. March 28 was a Tuesday, just another ordinary day, until the word began coming over the radio that a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania was having troubles. Radiation leak was the phrase. <br /></span><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As was normal then, and still is today, the nuclear industry was in full protect-thine-own-butt mode, with as little information made public as possible. And then, only the bare minimum. Those guys knew then, and know today, full well that their industry hangs on a slender thread. One screwup, one meltdown, one massive radiation release into the sky or water, and they are done. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As it turned out, TMI, as it was known, suffered "only" a partial melt-down. The reactor operators screwed up, and screwed up royally. They actually turned off a water pump that sent water into the core, and that act let the core overheat and melt down. Eventually, they started that pump again and sent water into the core, but by then the damage was done. The nuclear core had melted almost entirely through the reactor vessel's wall. In their (operators') defense, the plant designers and those who approve the design did not give the operators a way to watch the water level in the reactor core. They had to infer the water level by watching other measurements. That was a design error that was changed in other US nuclear plants. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of the trouble started when a pump failed to operate. As I wrote a few years ago in the Truth About Nuclear Power series, part 21:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"TMI (meltdown) was caused by a routine mechanical failure of a pump. Nobody can claim that a pump failure is a rare event. The problem at TMI was made much, much worse by a valve that stuck open. It is inexcusable that nuclear plant designers, operators, and oversight agencies failed to recognize that valves sometimes stick. The fact that valves sometimes stick in the open position, sometimes closed, and sometimes in-between is well-known to those in the </span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">process industries. This particular valve was a relief valve. Relief valves are even more prone to sticking open, a fact that is common knowledge. Yet, as the facts below demonstrate, TMI operators made blunder after blunder because they believed the relief valve closed by itself – they believed it had not stuck open. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Nuclear proponents frequently argue that the reason nuclear plants cost so much is due to needless design changes by the NRC during plant construction, and costly retrofits to those plants already in operation. The argument is invalid. We would indeed be a stupid society to allow plants to operate with known safety deficiencies such as existed at TMI before the accident. In fact, if not for the existence of all three required containment systems, deadly nuclear radiation would have spewed all over the northeastern corridor of the United States. Those three levels of containment are the fuel tube, the reactor vessel, and the containment building. Ultimately, the fuel tubes failed and melted, the reactor vessel barely contained the melted fuel, and the containment building contained most, but not all, of the gaseous radioactive particles. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"With the passage of time, more than 3 decades now, TMI has faded into the background. Yet, the lessons from that incident are serious, and point to what we can expect going forward." <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-21.html">see link</a> to the rest of the TMI meltdown analysis on SLB. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fast forward 40 years to today, and we see the nuclear industry still points to the TMI incident as the turning point where the public mood for nuclear turned sour, and costs to build new nuclear plants began to zoom. Today, a plant cannot be built for less than $10 billion for a 1,000 MWe output. More typical is $12 billion. That is approximately 10 to 12 times the price of a natural gas power plant with the same output. We saw just recently that two new reactors were abandoned, unfinished, as completely out of the question due to construction costs rising and rising. Two more reactors, these at Vogtle in Georgia, are staggering along, many years late and many $billions over their budget. Only time will tell if the Vogtle reactors ever get finished, and what the final cost will be. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In retrospect, nuclear plants seemed appropriate in the 1960s and then the 1970s after the oil price increases during the OPEC oil embargo. We burned fuel oil then to make electricity, as strange as that sounds today. Nuclear plants had almost zero fuel cost, we were told back then. So, scrapping expensive oil as fuel, and building nuclear plants with very cheap fuel might have made sense. After all, solar and wind power systems were possible, they actually worked, but their costs were outrageously high. So, we built nuclear plants, approximately 120 of them. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today, though, all that has changed. Wind turbines have declined in cost and improved in output, and the same is true for solar PV systems. Also, natural gas power plants no longer are limited to the modest efficiency of a steam plant, with the Rankine cycle. Improvements over the years now make the combined-cycle gas turbine plant much more efficient, at 60 percent. Low natural gas prices also exist today due to superb innovations in natural gas production that uses precision directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Because of these things, we no longer have a need for nuclear power plants. They served their purpose, they had their day. It is time to retire them and stop building them. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We note that it is seldom, and perhaps never, that a meltdown occurs in a shutdown nuclear power plant. We don't need another Three Mile Island meltdown. We need clean, safe, low-cost wind energy with efficient natural gas plants to accommodate the variations in output. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><div style="text-align: left;">
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</div>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Nuclear Power Plants.......</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a></div>
</span><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Climate Change................</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> and </span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></div>
</span><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Fresh Water......................</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></div>
</span><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Engineering......................</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> and </span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></div>
</span><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Free Speech.................... </span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></div>
</span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</span></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-48842979326747566842019-03-26T15:18:00.001-07:002019-03-26T15:18:22.695-07:00Oil Company Favors Carbon Tax - No Surprise<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Never Interrupt Your Opponent When He's Making A Mistake</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In an earlier article posted on SLB, (<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/rebuttal-to-aiche-presentation-on.html">see link</a>) I stated that oil companies are indeed in favor of a carbon tax, that is, a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, not because they believe the man-made global warming hype, but because they stand to profit by selling more natural gas. Natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide when burned in comparison to coal, <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CoxuzUBzfA0/XJqi9T0T4DI/AAAAAAAABhQ/38NsWrTNws0ySOX-dwd4LMNClpuFUGgWACLcBGAs/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528296%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="654" height="225" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CoxuzUBzfA0/XJqi9T0T4DI/AAAAAAAABhQ/38NsWrTNws0ySOX-dwd4LMNClpuFUGgWACLcBGAs/s320/Screenshot%2B%2528296%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">BP Energy Outlook 2019,<br />Fair Use exception to US copyright law</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
especially in electric power generating plants. It is pure self-interest that drives oil companies to favor a carbon tax, and if the world has gone crazy in the belief that man-made global warming is real, and dangerous, and ceasing emissions of carbon dioxide is needed, then oil companies seize this as an opportunity. One wonders just how many coal companies also favor a carbon tax. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Very recently, yesterday in fact, BP, a major oil company went on record and on camera with a review of energy demand for the near future, out to about year 2040. A major part of their vision, if you will, was having governments collect a carbon tax. BP stands to benefit, by selling more natural gas. BP Energy Outlook 2019 is at <a href="https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2019.pdf">this link</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some of the major points that BP made in the video are:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. Favors a carbon tax to replace coal with natural gas</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Favors subsidies for carbon capture-sequestration, CCS</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Favors massive energy efficiency investments</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. Favors biofuels for aviation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. Favors battery-powered transportation, for all but aviation. This increases electric power generation and sales of natural gas. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6. Oil will be reduced to non-transportation uses such as petrochemical feed, etc. (note that these are the more profitable business segments)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The video may be viewed on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1OwGWONMXDVGQ">this link</a>. The interview begins at around 6 minutes 10 seconds into the recording. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Carbon tax</b>: BP stated that burning natural gas yields about one-half the carbon dioxide when compared to burning coal in a power plant. That is rather generous, since the actual comparison is approximately one-third. My number is based on the gas-powered plant using combined cycle technology, CCGT, with 60 percent efficiency while a coal-fired plant has only 30 percent efficiency. If the fuels had an equal number of carbon and hydrogen atoms, that would give the one-half figure by BP. But, coal has more carbon and less hydrogen than natural gas, so the actual comparison is less than one-half, and approximately one-third. However, natural gas consumption is increasing while coal is decreasing in some areas, without a carbon tax. UK, for example, has almost zero coal-fired power at this time. The US has increased natural gas and decreased coal consumption for power generation as pollution laws changed so that coal plants now must invest in pollution abatement equipment. The plants shut down rather than invest. Meanwhile, natural gas power plants are booming. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is also instructive that Peabody, the major coal company, does not favor a carbon tax. Instead, Peabody advocates for subsidies for carbon capture technologies, see below. Also, Peabody's statement on climate change and ways to address it are at <a href="https://www.peabodyenergy.com/Peabody/media/MediaLibrary/Media%20Center/FINAL-Position-Statement-on-Energy-and-Climate-Change.pdf">this link</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subsidies for CCS</b>: BP stated the long-term subsidies for wind and solar power were very effective in making those technologies economic, and wants a similar treatment for CCS technologies. They refer to it as CCUS, for carbon capture, use, and sequestration. Presumably, the "use" includes CO2 mineralization such as conversion to sodium bicarbonate for food sales. At present, there is already a great deal of research into the capture technology, as that is the capital and energy-intensive part. BP wants more. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Energy Efficiency Investments</b>: It is unclear exactly what BP means by this; however we have already seen energy reduction by mandated efficiency for automobiles, the CAFE standards. Many years ago, the US chemical and refining industries had a mandated energy efficiency improvement that was quite successful. The problem with energy efficiency in many areas is a diminishing return on the investment. There are some areas, though, where efficiencies can save more energy; the mandated sale of high-efficiency home appliances is one such area. It may be a good idea to promote off-peak power consumption for chilled water or ice-and-water storage, then use the stored chilled water the next day for building or home cooling. This could save fuel when more efficient power plants are running at night, and the least-efficient are running during the peak of the day. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Biofuels for Aviation</b>: Bio-jet is similar to bio-diesel in that it handles and burns like jet fuel but is made from renewable feedstocks. Bio-jet exists and a few test flights have been made. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Battery-powered Transportation</b> (EVs for cars and trucks): BP favors these because they increase the demand for electric power. In BP's vision, the additional electric power will be provided by natural gas, a product which they sell. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Non-fuel uses for petroleum</b>: BP discussed single-use plastics, as an environmental problem that should be resolved. Correctly, BP stated that plastic containers serve a useful purpose and their replacement must be carefully considered else it may be worse. Before plastic (another BP?), containers were typically glass or metal. Plastic weighs less and therefore less fuel is consumed in the transport of such products in plastic containers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BP sees oil demand continuing for many years, perhaps two or three decades as fuel uses diminish, and petrochemicals from oil increase. Not mentioned were asphalt and lubricating oils. A reduced demand for oil will extend the life of oil fields, while reducing fuels produced from oil actually increases the profit margins for an integrated oil company. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of this has the goal of combating man-made climate change, or so BP says, but one really must wonder how much is simply taking advantage of an opportunity by putting self-interest first and nodding one's head. Selling more natural gas as power plant fuel, and prolonging the life of oil reserves while making much more profit per barrel, are not bad things to a big oil company. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If governments are making a mistake in stating that man-made global warming is real and a real danger, (and they are) then BP and other oil companies have figured out ways to make a profit. That's not a bad thing, actually, since the entire business of mining, transporting, burning, and disposing of the ash from coal has serious and real environmental issues. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br /><div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-15405880291489225312019-03-19T11:22:00.000-07:002019-10-07T06:43:05.777-07:00Why Climate False-Alarmists Are Completely Wrong <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Polar Bears Don't Know They Went Extinct 100,000 Years Ago</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TBPgqMET4VY/XJEx_JPGQ6I/AAAAAAAABg8/A_N8kKTaO8wdH7IqsimmfGQZ_RefDSnfACLcBGAs/s1600/polar_bear_usfws.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1043" data-original-width="1600" height="208" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TBPgqMET4VY/XJEx_JPGQ6I/AAAAAAAABg8/A_N8kKTaO8wdH7IqsimmfGQZ_RefDSnfACLcBGAs/s320/polar_bear_usfws.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">photo courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Climate science must be consistent, if it is to have any credibility. So, this bears (no pun intended) checking. The polar bear diverged from brown bears approximately 400,000 years ago per the scientists who study such things, but we are also told that the previous inter-glacial period was 8 degrees C warmer than today's temperature. The last inter-glacial period was approximately 100,000 years ago. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Meanwhile, there is much agonizing by the false-alarmists over polar bears' imminent extinction due to a - and get this one, folks - 2 degree C increase in temperature. They survived a 10,000 year period when the temperature was 8 degrees hotter than today, but now a 2 degree C increase will run them all extinct. That's their claim. (as an aside, one must also wonder exactly how coral reefs and sea turtles also survived in such an 8 degree warmer world)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The claim about divergence from brown bears: "We analyzed 89 complete genomes of polar bear and brown bear using population genomic modeling and show that the species diverged only 479–343 thousand years BP." - (Shiping Liu et. al. "Population Genomics Reveal Recent </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Speciation and Rapid Evolutionary </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Adaptation in Polar Bears," </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Cell 157, 785–794, May 8, 2014) <a href="https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2814%2900488-7">see link</a> (note: BP is Before Present, generally taken as 1950)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This claim of divergence approximately 400,000 years ago is disputed, as earlier work showed the divergence might have been a few millions of years ago. Something about assumptions one uses in the science one employs. Either way, those polar bears are pretty stout. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And, where is the claim made that the last inter-glacial period was 8 degrees C warmer compared to today? From those scientists that study ice cores, in this case the Greenland ice cores. For that matter, more recent data from ice cores show that the last 15,000 years, the current inter-glacial period also had several periods that were substantially warmer than today. These </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">include the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, and the even earlier Climate Optimum. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yet polar bears and coral reefs are still here. No tipping points existed back then, where polar ice melted, oceans turned acidic, frozen methane hydrates belched forth their stinking clouds of methane, ocean levels rose by the tens of meters, Florida was a giant reef, Memphis, Tennessee was a seaport while New Orleans was like Atlantis, a fabled underwater city, and many lovely tropical islands were underwater homes to tropical fish. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The next time a climate false-alarmist starts proclaiming the end is near, bring these points up and watch what he (or she) does. I did exactly that at a meeting of Chemical Engineers recently, (</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/rebuttal-to-aiche-presentation-on.html" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">see link</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">) and the reaction was, shall we say, less than positive. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(note: edited for clarity on the claim of brown bear divergence, and define BP)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-34902369626996742182019-03-10T12:48:00.000-07:002019-03-26T15:19:59.862-07:00Rebuttal to AIChE Presentation on Global Warming 3-2019<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: "A Man Seems Right Until Another Examines Him"</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I had an interesting evening on 7- March -2019 in Houston, Texas at the AIChE – South Texas Section monthly dinner meeting. The program speaker is a professor in chemical engineering at Texas A&M University, Dr. Mark Holtzapple. His topic was “Global Warming – An Engineering Perspective." I knew in advance that the slant would be pro-warming, pro-alarmism, based on the statements the current President of our section had made, and the biographical material on Professor Holtzapple. His research is, in part, on biofuels. So, it was not much of a surprise to attend the presentation and see slide after slide, statement after statement, parroting the pro-alarmist points. I sat in silence, but mentally taking notes in case I was allowed to ask a question at the end. (see <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/questions-for-climate-change-believers.html">this link</a> to a previous SLB article written just before the meeting; with a list of questions I would have liked to ask)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>UPDATE 23 March 2019</b>: added an item on Venus' surface temperature -- end update</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It appeared to me that the presenter’s purpose was to show that the problem of global warming is real, it is cause for alarm, it is agreed to by almost everyone that counts, and it will create great harm if not stopped. I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the presentation was one that is given to potential grant donors, who believe in global warming and fund research to halt it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Below is a list of points the presenter made (in bold font) with which I would take issue, and a brief statement of why what was said was either wrong, or misleading (in parentheses). I may update this list as more return to my memory, and with literature references. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Claimed the Climate models match the Temperature record, with a graph that appeared to start in perhaps 1900 and ran up to perhaps 2010 </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> ( </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Perhaps the models do a fairly good job after detailed tuning, but there was no mention of the complete absence of ability to forecast </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> There was also no mention that it is easy to tune a model to a dataset, but what is difficult (and these models have never done, to my knowledge) is to tune the models on the first half of the data, then run them and show agreement with the second half. ) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said a rise in CO2 leads (occurs before) a rise in Temperature in modern times</b>, <b>but the lead-lag was reversed until the last 100 years. That is, until year 1900, temperature rose first, followed centuries later by CO2 increases. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (no discussion that that may be unprecedented in the long history of Earth</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> However, there are some scientists that claim volcanic emissions of CO2 caused a greenhouse effect sufficiently strong to melt glacial ice at some points in Earth’s long history. What is far more likely is that volcanic ash and soot was deposited on the ice, which absorbed sunlight and accelerated the melting. )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>CO2 absorbs heat; but showed a graph of the same IR wavelengths as H2O vapor.</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (big gloss-over here, nobody called him on this one.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> The key point is that if, as he claims, H2O vapor absorbs the same wavelengths of IR heat as does CO2, then adding more CO2 will have zero effect.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Claimed Earth’s energy budget is Energy In = Energy Out </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> ( nobody called him on the incorrect statement. The correct equation is Energy In = Energy Out + Accumulation, where accumulation is heat absorbed by or given up by the oceans)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said that atmospheric CO2 is man made</b>, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (Made no comment about natural sources of CO2.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Man-made CO2 is trivial compared to natural increase. How do we know? For one thing, historic records of CO2 show values above 1000 PPM when human activity was zero. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> For another, some publications show the oceans have warmed over the past 150 years, and warmer water out-gasses dissolved CO2. How much the water warmed is highly debatable, given the measurements of the time.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Claimed that warmer oceans will create species extinction now; gave an example of sea turtles</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (He saw me shake my head at this; he stopped and asked me why I disagree? I asked him how the sea turtles would die off now, but did not die off in prior warm periods? Compared to today, warmer periods existed during the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period, 2000 and 3500 years ago. There were others before them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> He had no reply other than, as best I recall, saying I was being sarcastic. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-climate-false-alarmists-are.html">see link</a> for a discussion on how corals, sea turtles, and polar bears survived a period much, much warmer than today)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Claimed oceans are becoming more acidic as CO2 is absorbed; this and hotter oceans will kill off coral reefs</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (same issue as before, how did corals survive the earlier warm periods</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Alarmists have a problem with warmer oceans and increased acidity, because warmer water holds less dissolved gas such as CO2. Increased acidity requires the warmer water to hold MORE dissolved CO2.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said Sealevel rise already floods Miami</b>; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (why didn’t Florida flood in the recent warm periods? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Subsidence, perhaps?)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface is 342 W/m2 (as I recall, the number was perhaps slightly bigger or smaller) after albedo effects; and greenhouse gases warm the Earth to the present average 15 degrees C. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (What Gray body emissivity factor is used as a fudge factor to get 15 C Global Average Temperature? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> No mention that actual measured solar radiation at Earth’s surface exceeds 1000 W/m2 on sunny days. Reference Southwestern desert temperature stations via NOAA and NWS. Mountain Springs near Las Vegas, e.g. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> No mention that the measured solar radiation decreases to 200-600 W/m2 when clouds cover the sky. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Clear and convincing evidence that cloud cover is far, far more significant than any change in CO2. ) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed a graph of total fossil fuel use over time, claimed this as the source of atmospheric warming due to CO2 emissions</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (No mention of urban warming nor the urban heat island effect</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Simple heat balance requires that all that heat released from burning the fuels must be removed, else local areas will increase steadily in temperature. The large cities do show an increased, steady temperature rise since 1900 e.g. Boston, San Francisco, New York City, others). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed the classic Temperature vs Time chart where Global Temperature declined during 1940-1980 while CO2 rose (actually that was probably the graph of GATA vs time, global average temperature anomaly)</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (no mention of the disconnect. He said earlier that increased CO2 causes temperature to increase. How, then, did temperatures decline for almost 40 years in mid-century? CO2 was increasing during that time.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said Arctic bare water absorbs more sunlight and heat than does sea ice; shrinking ice therefore causes warming. </b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (No mention that Arctic ocean water loses more heat via radiation per Stefan-Boltzmann,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> No mention that ice acts as a very good insulator, holding heat in the water that would otherwise be lost as cold, fierce winds howl across the surface and black-body radiation allows heat to radiate into space.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed a graph of Arctic ice extent (I think) vs time, showed a distinct downward trend that ended at a low point.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (No mention that Arctic ice extent stabilized and actually has increased since 2007,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> No mention that the downward trend is highly correlated to dark ash and soot from coal-fired power plants, and from over-the-pole jet aircraft engine emissions,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> No mention of undersea volcanic warming of Arctic water.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed a Graph of a world map with present temperatures compared to average or baseline Temperature from 1951-1981, shouted (twice) at the audience that the Arctic is 11 deg C warmer. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (No mention that few, or no measurements exist in the Arctic before 1980, so how do they know? How accurate is the before-and-after comparison)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Says wind power must have storage, showed compressed air storage underground, aka CAES for compressed air energy storage</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (but we don’t require grid storage, instead we use flexible gas power plants, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> meanwhile wind produces 6.5 pct of electricity in US annual average,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> wind produces more than 25 pct annually in several states. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Texas’ grid managing entity ERCOT states that wind power reached a record of 54 percent of Texas' momentary grid load in October, 2017. Texas has no grid storage to speak of.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> SLB article on wind power and natural gas is at <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils.html">this link</a> )</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed an Ice core CO2 graph spliced onto Mauna Loa CO2 graph, </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (This is wrong because one data set is actual measurements (Mauna Loa) while the other is a completely different method (bubbles from ice cores)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> no mention of gas migration in snow to ice as compaction occurred, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> no mention of gas diffusivity in ice at pressure. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> CO2 values in ice cores' bubbles are therefore much lower than in the atmosphere.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Mentioned 100,000 year climate cycle, </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (no mention of 1500 year global warming cycle.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> e.g. Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, etc.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Mentioned Methane hydrates as source of methane emissions creating greenhouse effect, showed a video clip of James Hansen re tipping point, </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (but no mention of how Earth survived the recent past warm periods eg Roman Warming, Minoan Warm Period, and previous for the past 15,000 years since glaciers melted.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Slide of a glacier retreat over several decades,</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (no context of similar rate of retreat since 1850, warming due to Little Ice Age. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> No mention of other glaciers that are growing)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Showed recent Houston flooding events and frequency; </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (no mention of NOAA's chart showing decreased flooding frequency over recent 30 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> No mention of massive Texas floods in 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Colorado and Brazos rivers joined in a great flood.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b>Said even the major oil companies favor a carbon tax,</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> (no mention of why? They want to sell natural gas as power plant fuel, and put coal out of business. Self interest. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Oil companies' Climate statement was only due to shareholder pressure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> For a recent SLB article on BP's favorable stance on a carbon tax, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/oil-company-favors-carbon-tax-no.html">see link</a></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">•</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; white-space: pre;"> </span><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Mentioned</span></b><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," perhaps as an attempt to persuade the audience that global warming is real and catastrophic.</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b> </b>(No mention that the movie contains multiple defects</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> No mention that a judge requires the defects to be presented along with the movie in UK schools</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> The primary defect is the huge graph of CO2 and temperature over time, giving the false impression that increases in CO2 cause an increase in global temperature)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">• <b>Mentioned the surface temperature of planet Venus is hotter than is Mercury, even though Mercury is much closer to the Sun. Blamed the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere.</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (No mention that Venus' atmosphere is very thick, many miles deep, and surface pressure is approximately 94 times that of Earth at sea level. Venus' atmospheric composition is almost entirely carbon dioxide, approximately 96 percent by volume. In contrast, Earth has only 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. One would expect a professor of chemical engineering to know about the adiabatic lapse rate for gases at altitude. (Adiabatic lapse rate is why a mountain top is colder than the valley floor below, at the same date and time.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> One would also expect a professor of chemical engineering to know about the parameters for radiant heat transfer in luminous gases, as described in the Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> The important point is that Earth has far too little CO2, at temperatures far too low, and overall pressures much too low for CO2 to be a significant heating source. As stated by Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT), greenhouse gas warming by CO2 on Earth is trivially true but numerically insignificant.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-80396076571153842842019-03-07T15:00:00.000-08:002019-10-07T06:58:35.948-07:00Questions for Climate Change Believers<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Is Global Warming Just BS (Bad Science)?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If I were to attend a conference or even a dinner meeting with a featured speaker who made the presumption that man-made global warming is real, is cause for alarm, and is due to humanity's use of fossil fuels that produce CO2 into the atmosphere, I would have some questions for the speaker. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As background, SLB has many articles on the subject of man-made global warming, and the science behind the belief that it is a problem. Three of the most-read articles are linked below:</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- A lengthy article on my journey from being a believer in man-made global warming to my conversion to a rational skeptic <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/from-man-made-global-warmist-to-skeptic.html">see link</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- The transcript of my 2012 public speech on why climate warmists are wrong, and deep global cooling is coming, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html">see link</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- And, a chemical engineer uses principles of process control to rebut the concept of CO2 causing global warming <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html">see link</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In no particular order, the questions I would ask include: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Is it true that...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...A 1 percent change in cloud cover has more effect on solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface than all CO2 increase since 1950?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">… The greenhouse gas warming effect of man-made CO2 is “trivially true but numerically insignificant,” a quote from Professor Richard Lindzen, of MIT?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">… the long-term record shows that CO2 increases approximately 800 years after a global temperature increase?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Warmer sea surface temperatures are due to fewer hurricanes?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">... Areas with Low population had no warming in 20th century?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Sea level rise is the same on average as the deposition rate of ocean sediment?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">... Arctic ice began shrinking when coal soot deposits increased?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">... Arctic ice above Russia began shrinking as volcanic activity occurred on the Arctic seafloor?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Arctic ice has stabilized since 2007?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">....Antarctic ice breaks away right above the volcanic zone?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Greenland’s ancient settlements are now buried in ice?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Earth cooled as Little Ice Age started in year 1300 AD and lasted 550 years?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Earth warmed as Little Ice Age ended in 1850 with zero help from humans? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...The three cold winters of 1977-78-79 and the warm El Nino year 1998 created the illusion of global warming in the final 25 years of the 20th century? (reference the graph below of Abilene, Texas, showing the cold winters before 1980 and the El Nino before 2000)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z0bMxPCXs6M/S2euvP35wpI/AAAAAAAAAG0/G4nJcoc09fg-T8b68Jur4GAvAIi-ozbjwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Abilene%2BTX%2Boverall.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="339" data-original-width="1136" height="117" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z0bMxPCXs6M/S2euvP35wpI/AAAAAAAAAG0/G4nJcoc09fg-T8b68Jur4GAvAIi-ozbjwCPcBGAYYCw/s400/Abilene%2BTX%2Boverall.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Earth entered glaciation periods when CO2 was far higher than today?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">...Coral reefs survived several hot ocean eras and ice ages?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">… Many areas show a cooling trend, interrupted by slight warming due to El Nino events?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">… A change in 50 years from 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as having a small house 1250 square feet with 8 foot ceilings that has 3 beach balls inside initially, 15 inch diameter, and after 50 years adding just one more beach ball? Such a house has 10,000 cubic feet volume, and each beach ball has almost exactly 1 cubic foot volume. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In addition, I would ask the presenter what he has to say about a few books on Global warming, including: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"The Neglected Sun: </span><span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe," </span><br />
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning (2015)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (2007)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"A Disgrace To The Profession," by Mark Steyn (2015)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: helvetica neue, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus," </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, et al. (2016)</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> and</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"Polar Bears In The Hot Tub," by Arthur Krugler (2018).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(note: updated to add authors' names and year of publication to book titles)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-65534694757416437592019-02-11T11:40:00.001-08:002019-02-12T09:23:49.440-08:00Musings at 300,000 Views<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The internal, Google-based page-view counter for SLB just rolled over 300,000 pageviews on February 10, 2019. It's just a round number, but it is a milestone of sorts. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the past year or so, the topics that appear on SLB have had a few items of interest. Nuclear power plants are still closing in the US, while 2 of the 4 under construction were abandoned, never to be finished. The remaining 2 reactors, at Vogtle plant in Georgia, are limping along with years-long delays and ever-escalating costs to construct. The latest (but certainly not the final ) cost estimate is US $25 Billion, which is approximately $11,000 to $12,000 per kW of nameplate. As is the usual case, the ratepayers in Georgia get stuck with outrageously costly electricity. Perhaps one day the people of Georgia will say Enough. For SLB article on the very high costs to build nuclear plants, <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-three.html">see link</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Again in nuclear power, the US government has agreed in principle to construct the first small, modular reactor as designed by NuScale. <a href="https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-office-nuclear-energy-announces-agreement-supporting-power-generated-small-modular">see link</a> The reactor is not yet approved for license and construction, but one presumes that will occur in due course. (<a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/nuscale-small-modular-reactor-begins.html">see link</a> to article on SLB re the NuScale SMR under review at NRC) At only 50 MWe output, the tiny reactor cannot possibly hope to be economic, but then rational people knew that all along. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And, the news just today states that infamous TMI, or Three Mile Island nuclear plant (the one that did not melt down) is in jeopardy of shutting down permanently due to losing money. The appeals for yet more subsidies are under consideration in the Pennsylvania state government chambers. <a href="https://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pennsylvania-nuclear-power-bailout-20190206-story.html">see link</a> The argument this time appears to be that nuclear should be given special consideration like wind, solar, and true renewables have, since a nuclear reactor produces no carbon dioxide, CO2, when it operates. The money-losing nuclear plants cannot compete in the market, and they make that misleading appeal. The fact is, the nuclear plants are off-line approximately 10 percent of the time, but require massive inflows of electricity during that off-line period to keep cooling pumps running and other parts of the plant operating. The electricity consumed is from the grid, which produces CO2 according to the mix of coal and natural gas fired plants. So, nuclear is not carbon-free power; it is actually limited carbon power. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So much for nuclear. As stated often on SLB, the technology is too costly and too deadly to be built. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the climate change arena, specifically the man-made global warming aspect, we see more of the same from the official IPCC and the false-alarmists. The rational climate analysts, though, see through the various shenanigans that produce the alarmist conclusions; the constant data adjustments, the making up data, the ignoring data that refutes the warming trend, the inclusion of blatantly wrong data, the splicing together of horribly wrong past data with modern satellite data, and of course many others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is fascinating to witness the gyrations by climate false-alarmists during this very cold and snowy winter of 2018-19, with polar vortex incursions blamed on CO2-warmed air invading the Arctic and displacing the cold air into Canada and the US. Interesting idea, but one must pause and wonder exactly how the brutally cold winters of 1977-79 (and others) happened, since CO2 was so much lower back then. SLB has articles on those three winters, with the label Abilene Effect. As usual, the false-alarmists have no credible explanation for the cold winters then, nor now. And that was just in the late 1970s. (see Figure 3 at <a href="https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/cold-winters-created-global-warming.html">this link</a>, "Cold Winters Created Global Warming.")</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As snow piles up in the Sierra Nevada mountains in early 2019, one considers the record snows of 1952 and 1937 (more than 60 feet of snow fell in each of those years, per Central Sierra Snow Laboratory at University of California, Berkeley). How, exactly, did those monster storms off the Pacific bring all that moisture into the mountains, when CO2 was even less back then than it was in the late 1970s? We see the California snow pack, measured in early February this year, is above the long-term average for that date. Of course, the false-alarmists say that global warming does not mean no snow. In fact, they say that global warming is supposed to make more snow. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another warning from the false-alarmists is the sea surface temperature that is (supposedly) increasing as CO2 beams its warming rays down onto the ocean. Meanwhile, it is a solid fact that hurricanes cool surface waters, and there are fewer and fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic. What the false-alarmists fail to discuss is why there is a dearth of hurricanes, when their theory on CO2-induced global warming requires there be more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes. As to sea-surface temperatures increasing, one must wonder how the waters immediately along the US coast, from Brownsville around Florida and up the eastern seaboard, are below the long-term average temperature. Perhaps the explanation will be that CO2 gets a bit confused right at the coastline, and refuses to shine its warming rays down on that bit of water. Here's an explanation that just makes one laugh (they used this on why lakes are not warming as predicted): the trees on the shoreline shaded the lake. Maybe the trees on the ocean shore are also shading the coastal waters. Those will be some mighty big trees. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And now, a brief plug for a colleague, a PE in chemical engineering, highly experienced and even more highly respected by his associates, colleagues, and clients around the world, Mr. Arthur Krugler. Art published (in late 2018) his book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub, with his always-interesting views on why the Arctic ice recently declined. Ocean currents that are heated from below by a long chain of undersea volcanoes, stimulated by earthquake activity, had a lot to do with it. The book is available on Amazon and other outlets. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the political arena, President Trump created a storm of outrage among the false-alarmists with his 2019 State Of The Union speech, by completely ignoring climate change. The implied message was, We have numerous, serious issues to address, and climate change is simply not one of them. He addressed many other topics, including peace in Afghanistan, the opioid crisis, health care, illegal immigration and the wall along the US southern border, the booming economy, and socialism has zero place in the USA. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So much for climate change and false-alarmism, although there is much, much more to be said. Now to renewable energy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In renewable energy and electrical grids, wind turbines are still the stars and growing ever-more economic. We see ocean-based wind farms with 8 MW turbines, and Vestas announced a 9.5 MW machine. GE is still working on their double-digit machine, a 12 MW turbine. These, along with floating-spar mooring systems, are bringing down the cost of electricity from offshore wind. A project was announced in Asia that will have a profit at 10 cents (US) per kWh sold. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Scotland-based Hywind project with floating-spar turbines (6 MW each) has exceeded performance expectations, just as predicted here on SLB. The floating-spar technology with larger turbines is fully expected to yield sales prices of 4 to 6 cents per kWh within 4 or 5 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">An interesting development occurred this past year, for on-shore wind installations. The US Department of Energy issued a general call for help in solving the transportation problem in that industry. <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/request-information-pathways-success-next-generation-supersized-wind-turbine">see link</a> At present, the roads and railroads are a limit to transporting large turbine blades to the wind farms. Turbines of 2.5 to 3 MW are the maximum that can be installed until a way is found to transport larger turbine blades. Perhaps the ideas will result in workable solutions, I suspect the answer will be in blades transported in segments, then assembled on-site. Perhaps the blade manufacturers can consult with the US Navy about their folding-wing aircraft. Maybe it is time to rebuild the interstate highway system and design for larger items to be transported. It is certainly possible to put crossings under the interstate, and eliminate the low-clearance bridges. It may be cheaper just to make the crossing bridges into draw-bridges. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Then, there is the high-level hilarity from the rookie Democrat proposal for a Green New Deal, which would eliminate fossil fuel use in the US by 2030, only 11 years away. That one has much to discuss, and I anticipate an article or two on that on SLB. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally, a word about all-electric vehicles and the profound transformation underway in the global energy industry. Battery technology has improved and is fully expected to continue to improve, so that pure EV (electric vehicles) are being produced and planned world-wide. OPEC is in disarray over this, and oil companies now mention Peak Oil Demand in their speeches and on their websites. It won't be long before the following slogan will be patriotic, </span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>"Drive An EV, And </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">OPEC Can Pound Sand" </span><span style="font-family: "courier new";"><span style="font-size: large;">™</span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With gratitude to all who visit SLB and read and leave a comment, </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;" />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-40809495628263074642018-08-21T08:17:00.000-07:002018-08-21T08:17:14.710-07:00Bechtel Bails - Botched Budget<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: New Nuclear Plant in Wales has Budget Escalation Before Construction</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bechtel, the giant engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) company with extensive nuclear plant experience, reportedly has withdrawn from the construction of a new nuclear power plant in Wales, UK, the Wylfa Newydd plant. The reason given is the plant has escalating costs and Bechtel cannot make a profit on the contract. The plant hasn't even started construction yet. <a href="http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201808170035.html">see link</a> The quote from Asahi Shimbun: ". . . the overall costs estimated by Bechtel are higher than Hitachi’s, making it impossible for Bechtel and Hitachi to agree on the price tag."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a result, Bechtel decided to withdraw from its key role in construction and only offer a consulting service.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This plant is to have two reactors of the ABWR type, Advanced Boiling Water Reactors licensed by Hitachi. Total electrical output is 2,700 MWe, with each reactor providing half. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bechtel will take on an advisory or consulting role, and another company will be the builder. The problem with that is the builder has zero experience in building an entire nuclear power plant. Having an inexperienced builder is exactly what got the Olkiluoto plant in Finland in so much trouble. Olkiluoto has the French design, the EPR for European Pressurized Reactor. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bechtel: "We look forward to continuing to bring our expertise to the construction of the UK’s next new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd in our role as Project Management Contractor.” Project Management Contractor generally is the term for the Owner's representative that oversees the Builder's work. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This one will be quite interesting to follow in the coming years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #f6f6f6; color: black; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br /><div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-34317706184460654992018-07-23T07:11:00.000-07:002018-07-23T07:11:15.296-07:00Wind Energy Reduces Fossil Fuel Use<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: US Results Show Wind Energy Reduced Fossil Fuels</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Recently, the Never-Wind contingent has made much of a study that concluded wind energy in Europe did nothing to decrease CO2 emissions, instead, fossil fuel use increased. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is all part of the never-ending debates about man-made global warming, or AGW as it is known (Anthropomorphic Global Warming). The false-alarmists who fervently believe in the AGW conclusions of Earth overheating, polar ice melting, seas rising and inundating cities on shorelines, and a host of other horrible events, almost always push for more nuclear power as their preferred means to reduce fossil fuel use that produces Carbon Dioxide, CO2. The AGW false-alarmists don't like renewable energy systems such as wind turbines and solar arrays because they suppress the building of more nuclear power plants. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even though dozens of articles published here on SLB show conclusively that nuclear plants should never be built, the AGW false-alarmists push for more nuclear power. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html">see link</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The facts for the US electricity market show that wind energy reduced fossil fuel use almost one-for-one during the period 2006-2016. This is the exact opposite of the conclusion from the Europe study. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This article's emphasis is on the measurable effect of increased wind power on the fossil fuel consumption in the US. The data is from the US Energy Information Agency, the EIA. EIA data on electricity is the best data available. The most recent data for full-year as of this writing is for 2016. Ten years before that, in 2006, the US had wind farms but the annual production of electricity amounted to only 0.7 percent of all electricity sold in the US that year. In 2016, wind produced 5.7 percent of the US electricity sold. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For this study, electricity production is sorted into four categories by energy type:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Natural gas as fuel</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Coal as fuel</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Wind as input energy, and </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- All Others (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wood, solar, etc.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The results are shown in Figure 1 below:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4W9MM_gKPjI/W1XZXUDRzHI/AAAAAAAABgA/JSw7rXp5dpk1L3Wo3HDrsjm9dP9L9fyqQCLcBGAs/s1600/Screenshot%2B%2528291%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="363" data-original-width="1193" height="193" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4W9MM_gKPjI/W1XZXUDRzHI/AAAAAAAABgA/JSw7rXp5dpk1L3Wo3HDrsjm9dP9L9fyqQCLcBGAs/s640/Screenshot%2B%2528291%2529.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1. Comparison of US Electricity and Effect of Wind Energy - 2006 to 2016<br />Wind Energy Caused Fossil Fuel-based Electricity to Decline</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The charts in Figure 1 show that All Other category remained essentially the same from 2006 to 2016, at barely more than 30 percent. The fossil fuel category is found by adding the components for Natural Gas and for Coal. In 2006, the fossil fuel represented 69.1 percent, while in 2016 fossil fuel represented 64.2 percent. Wind energy made the difference. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Data source:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 86px;"><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 65pt;" width="86">https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/ </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/">see link</a><div>
<br />Fossil Fuel Consumption for Electricity Generation by Year, Industry Type and State (EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-923) )</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />It is also true that, in the US, coal-fired power decreased substantially from almost half to less than one-third of all power produced. Coal produced 49 percent in 2006, but only 30.4 percent in 2016. That reduction in coal-fired power, and the attendant increase in natural gas-fired power, is the reason that total CO2 emissions in the US have declined. And, we note that the reduced CO2 emissions are entirely due to market forces plus environmental regulations enforcement, and nothing to do with any climate treaties. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, having demonstrated that it not only is possible for wind energy to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but it certainly occurred in the US, what happened in Europe?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The answer to that lies in the way European countries chose to produce electricity over the past 5 decades. The short answer is that Europe did not have access to cheap, secure, and abundant natural gas. Instead, Europe relied on what little hydroelectric power was available, then coal, and then nuclear. Geopolitics enter into this in a big way. Even though the EU, European Union, tried to erase nationalism, countries in Europe still are not as free to transport energy fuels as is the case in the United States. Europe is also deficient in natural gas compared to the US. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The result is that electricity is provided by coal and nuclear, two technologies that are slow to respond to large changes in grid demand. The proper term here is Net Demand, the amount of power the generating fleet must supply that is not provided by wind and solar. As the wind dies down, the Net Demand increases. When the wind dies at the same time as total demand increases, Net Demand increases even more. When sufficient wind energy supplies electricity to a grid, certain coal and nuclear plants must either reduce output, or go off-line to keep the grid balanced. In Europe, the nuclear plants remain online, and certain coal plants are selected for disconnect from the grid. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That presents a problem. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The coal-fired power plants will likely be required only a few hours later, so the coal is kept burning and more coal is fed to the plant. Steam is produced by the burning coal, but the steam is routed around the turbine and directly into the condensers. In effect, more coal is burned and zero power is produced. There may be a small amount of steam sent through the turbine just to keep the turbine spinning and the bearings aligned. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How to avoid this?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The answer is to copy the US example and burn more natural gas, and less coal. Natural gas-fired plants also may be disconnected from the grid as wind output increases. However, natural gas to the boiler or gas turbine can be shut off entirely. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With little natural gas produced locally, European countries import natural gas. LNG imports are increasing, and the very controversial gas pipelines from Russia are another source. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br /><div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-57165818730604893922018-05-17T07:23:00.000-07:002018-05-17T07:23:24.689-07:00Offshore Wind for Taiwan<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><b>Subtitle: Offshore Wind Reaches Lift-Off Point of 10 cents</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Project costs of the two offshore wind farms (German company) wpd will build in Taiwan amount to EUR 4 billion, according to the latest news from the company. . ." <a href="https://mobile.offshorewind.biz/2018/05/17/wpds-taiwanese-offshore-wind-farms-to-cost-eur-4-billion/">see link</a> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><br /></span></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HeTugnV_4PY/WQuqK3vd_NI/AAAAAAAABYM/6Y5--7yRY6UxsbSS23Dz1maUlLPlSHiOwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/nordsee-one-delivers-first-power-1024x699.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="699" data-original-width="1024" height="272" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HeTugnV_4PY/WQuqK3vd_NI/AAAAAAAABYM/6Y5--7yRY6UxsbSS23Dz1maUlLPlSHiOwCPcBGAYYCw/s400/nordsee-one-delivers-first-power-1024x699.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Offshore Wind Turbine (center)<br />with jack-up ship performing installation (at right)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">This is interesting because the project cost (€4 billion) and size (1,058 MW installed) give an electricity sales price of US 8-12 cents per kWh, depending on the capacity factor, CF, (actual divided by maximum output). At 50 percent CF, and a 10 year simple payout, 10 cents per kWh sold is required. Fifty percent CF is easily achieved offshore, in the strong and steady winds that exist offshore. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">That 10 cent price meets the goal stated at the OTC wind sessions a few weeks ago. Ten cents is the lift-off point at which offshore wind projects need no subsidy and are built as fast as the manufacturers can produce the components. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 12.8px;" /></span><br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br /><div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-38113118276927520192018-05-07T14:14:00.001-07:002018-05-08T08:53:25.202-07:00Sea Level Rise Hysteria in California Delta<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: The Data Shows Zero Cause For Alarm</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The headlines are certainly alarming, but what are the facts?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From DeltaConservancy.ca.gov : "Climate Change. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta could undergo many changes due to climate change and sea level rise in the decades ahead. The potential impacts to this region include an increased risk of levee failure, loss of agricultural land and productivity, loss of wetlands, reduced water quality,. . ."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From SacBee.com: "How climate change could threaten the water supply for millions of Californians -- </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When it comes to California and climate change, the predictions are staggering: coastal airports besieged by floodwaters, entire beaches disappearing as sea levels rise.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"Another disturbing scenario is brewing inland, in the sleepy backwaters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It’s a threat to the Delta’s ecosystem that could swallow up a significant portion of California’s water supply."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And now, the truly terrifying article, by environmental scientist Ronald Melcer: "There is nearly a 70 percent chance that by [year] 2100 we’re going to see 2.4 ft of sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge. That’s with a low-emissions scenario, which is based on the Paris climate agreement. [But]</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> if we don’t do anything, that’s where [California is] headed. That [do nothing scenario] shows 3.4 ft of sea level rise by 2100." <a href="https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/community/2018/04/27/california-delta-a-flash-point-for-conflict-as-climate-change-unfolds">see link</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All that is certainly sobering, if it were anywhere close to being true. But, the facts show it is simply scare-mongering at its worst. Sadly for science, this type of mis-information is and has been the reality for many years now. Some facts are shown below. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dy1CDvWNuzo/WvC55PtyyII/AAAAAAAABfg/f1gHY0NtH78bE8bzjqqw3xjvErkkxkU2wCLcBGAs/s1600/Sea%2BLevel%2Bat%2BSan%2BFrancisco%2B-2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="1000" height="160" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dy1CDvWNuzo/WvC55PtyyII/AAAAAAAABfg/f1gHY0NtH78bE8bzjqqw3xjvErkkxkU2wCLcBGAs/s400/Sea%2BLevel%2Bat%2BSan%2BFrancisco%2B-2.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 1<br />Change in Sea Level at San Francisco, CA - NOAA<br />Overall Trend is 1.96 mm/yr (7.8 inches per Century)<br />But note zero rise from 1985-2014</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Figure 1 shows the measured, gauge-based sea level increase at San Francisco Bay since 1855. The overall increase was only 1.96 mm per year (7.8 inches per century). What is more interesting, though, is the period from 1985 through 2014. In those 30 years, the sea level did not increase at all. The heavy black lines indicate the flat trend from 1985 through 2014. (one could easily start the zero-trend period a few years earlier, in 1980) Yet, the false-alarmist scientists insist that sea level was rising faster in the past 30 years or so, due to increased Carbon Dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. Certainly, that is not true in San Francisco Bay, as measured by NOAA. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, to examine the rate of sea level increase that is required to achieve the alarmist claims from above by Melcer: With a low-emissions scenario, he claims 2.4 feet increase in sea level by year 2100. And, with a do-nothing or business-as-usual scenario, he claims 3.4 feet by year 2100. A bit of math shows that 2.4 feet equates to 8.9 mm per year increase. That's almost 4.5 times the measured rate over the past 150 years, and infinitely higher than the zero increase during the past 30 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Similary, the 3.4 feet increase by year 2100 equates to 12.6 mm per year; almost 6.5 times as great as the measured, steady rate since 1850. Again, that rate is infinitely higher than the zero increase during the past 30 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, with the actual NOAA measurements at only 1.96 mm per year, how does a scientist make such outrageous claims with a straight face? The answer is in what are referred to as "tipping points." These are predicted events that greatly accelerate existing trends. In the case of sea level rise, the tipping point is supposedly the rapid melting of Greenland ice and Antarctic ice. That rapid melting is to occur because CO2 shines its heating rays down on the ice. The reality is that Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing. The Greenland ice is melting only due to black carbon and soot particles that were and still are deposited from coal-burning power plants, wildfires, and jet engine exhaust. As it turns out, coal-burning power plants will be shutting down in 20 to 30 years due to a lack of affordable coal. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The false-alarmism is blatant on this one. The sea level at San Francisco would be required to jump from barely 8 inches per century to 52 inches per century. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-26419015539311133582018-03-29T09:31:00.002-07:002018-03-30T06:31:53.212-07:00Climate True-Believers vs Rational Skeptics<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: A New Series of the Ongoing Debate</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is the first of what I anticipate will be a series of articles documenting and commenting on the never-ending debate over climate change, global warming, and man's role (if any) in the entire affair. Recently, about a week ago, I learned to my dismay that my engineering professional organization, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), had elected a new president for the Greater Houston area (STS or South Texas Section) who publicly stated that global warming is real, it is man-made, and the time for discussion is finished. That's a paraphrase, but it captures the intent. Needless to say, I was and am not pleased. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Some of this blog, SLB is devoted to articles on AGW, or anthropomorphic global warming. Those articles document my own personal journey from being a believer in what the scientists published, to digging into the data and the conclusions then realizing the entire body of evidence is tainted beyond being useful. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/from-man-made-global-warmist-to-skeptic.html">see link</a> Much of the chicanery borders on fraud. Others of the SLB articles document the many, many examples of what the false-alarmists have done under the guise of valid science, and discuss exactly what is wrong with that. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html">see link</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also, from time to time, some of my colleagues have engaged alarmist chemical engineers to argue why the data is not credible and therefore neither are the alarmist conclusions. I also have engaged a few from time to time, but this time seems different. The attacks got personal very quickly. I should point out that the incoming AIChE STS president was not one who made personal attacks. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, today I take keyboard in hand and write out a few things. In no particular order, one thing I received was a lecture on how carbon dioxide, CO2, absorbs radiant heat energy in the infrared spectrum (IR energy or just IR), then emits that energy outward in all directions. That was offered as if I was ignorant of that bit of physical chemistry. Apparently, the one or ones lecturing me are unaware of a post from May, 2017 on SLB that discusses that very issue. The post is "<i>Chemical Engineers, CO2, and Absorptive Re-Radiation</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Subtitle: Fired Furnaces Have Strong Radiating CO2; Atmosphere Does Not</i>." <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/chemical-engineers-co2-and-absorptive.html">see link</a> In a nutshell, chemical engineers and mechanical engineers design fired furnaces that must account for the radiant properties of not only CO2, but also water vapor. This has been known for approximately 100 years now. So, the question is not one of does CO2 absorb or not, but what, if any influence does such CO2 have on atmospheric temperatures. As a noted rational scientist has stated, atmospheric warming by CO2 is trivially true but numerically insignificant. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One can describe other aspects of physics that are also trivially true but numerically insignificant. One is ocean acidification, where a single drop of hydrochloric acid is added to the ocean, one drop each year for 100 years. While it is true that, in a laboratory, one can add a drop of acid to a small beaker of water, then easily measure the decrease in pH, one cannot measure the decrease in pH in the ocean. The result is numerically insignificant. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Less in the esoteric realm of chemistry, a more practical example. It is true that adding weight to a vehicle will require more gasoline to move the vehicle a given distance. The converse is also true, such that removing weight will result in less gasoline required. But, one cannot measurably improve gas mileage by simply vacuuming up the dust particles from a small area of the floorboards. Of course, a tiny amount of mass or weight is removed in the vacuuming process, but the result is numerically insignificant. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Other examples come readily to hand: adding one more flake of crushed ice to a pitcher of frozen margaritas, adding a single grain of salt to a large pot of soup, etc. In each case, the outcome is trivially true but numerically insignificant. Thus it is with adding CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How can we know that this (numerically insignificant result) is true? After all, the false-alarmists among the climate scientists, and now at least a few of the chemical engineers, boldly state that AGW is true and dire consequences are imminent. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One of the many ways we know that CO2 is not warming the atmosphere is the basic tenet of physics that holds that physics is not arbitrary, not capricious, instead it works reliably and robustly every time. This is also discussed in more than a few articles on SLB, the reader is encouraged to do a search on the word "gravity." Many examples of physics that work reliably and robustly can be stated: combining certain colors of light will result in a known final color; mixing various colors of pigment in a paint base will yield a consistent final color; mixing certain ingredients for a cooking recipe will give a cake, not a roast duck; producing a vibration in air with a frequency of 440 cycles per second will result in a sound that we call an A note, etc. Real physics is not arbitrary nor capricious. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yet, there are many examples of locations on the land where zero warming has occurred over a century or more. As pointed out on SLB many times, how does the CO2 know which cities or towns below it are to be ignored? Here is a list of cities in the US that had zero warming or were cooling since 1900, as shown by data from a climate research think-tank. The cities are: Sacramento CA, </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Shreveport LA, </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Asheville NC, </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Charleston SC, </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Chattanooga TN, </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nashville TN, and </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Abilene TX. Meanwhile, adjacent cities show a pronounced warming, such as San Francisco CA that is only 50 miles west of Sacramento. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-cities-hadcrut3-temperatures.html">see link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QJda7IFkjz8/Tm0NMURTslI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/0CLdBszXgf0LTAWm-53hZWCEKl453n4BQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Goodridge%2B1996%2BLUC%2Bin%2BCalifornia.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="905" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QJda7IFkjz8/Tm0NMURTslI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/0CLdBszXgf0LTAWm-53hZWCEKl453n4BQCPcBGAYYCw/s320/Goodridge%2B1996%2BLUC%2Bin%2BCalifornia.png" width="318" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Add caption</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The arbitrary warming is not limited to cities, as we know that entire counties do not warm if the population is small, some states have not warmed, and entire regions of the US show little to zero warming. Here is a graph from a publication by James Goodridge, former State Climatologist for California, showing the absence of warming for low-population counties but significant warming in high-population counties. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another argument made by the false-alarmists is the outright hubris I must have to hold my views, when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that AGW is real and man-made, and imminent disasters are certain. That, too, was addressed in a SLB article, see "</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Why Claim of 97 Percent Scientists is Wrong; </i></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Subtitle: Consensus Does Not Make Wrong Science Right,</i>" <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-claim-of-97-percent-scientists-is.html">see link</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are so many other issues to address, but time is precious so here ends the article for today. It is indeed unfortunate that a few chemical engineers have blindly believed the false-alarmists in the science community. And for the record, I am certainly not alone; indeed there are many chemical engineers who completely agree with my views. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-33080073000790743552018-03-16T09:03:00.000-07:002018-03-16T09:05:35.013-07:00Ten Years of SLB<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Today marks the tenth year anniversary of my first blog article here on SowellsLawBlog, or <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bR5dPgh2HZc/SMh2KdosqSI/AAAAAAAAAAk/nXWzuHwpGG0vVa7Yav38YYDrNFjku3lBACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/IMG_1436.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bR5dPgh2HZc/SMh2KdosqSI/AAAAAAAAAAk/nXWzuHwpGG0vVa7Yav38YYDrNFjku3lBACPcBGAYYCw/s320/IMG_1436.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sowell, speaking in Houston, TX a few years ago.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
SLB. It has been a remarkable ten years. This blog has few articles and little traffic, when compared to the massive sites on the internet. There are just under 500 articles to date (486), and a bit more than 260,000 page views. However, I don’t write SLB articles to have dozens per day and millions of viewers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The topics on SLB include nuclear power, climate change, engineering, energy policy, renewable energy, defamation, fresh water, and a few others. The most popular, by number of views, are the engineers’ view of climate change, peak oil and energy policy, and the 30-article series of Truth About Nuclear Power. The TANP series now has more than 25,000 views. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Very interesting things have occurred in the past ten years, which will influence the direction of a few key industries. In no particular order:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Wind turbines’ cost to install has declined, while efficiency has improved. This will see large inroads on conventional power plants in the next 10 to 30 years. Offshore wind is increasing as turbines reach 8 MW and soon, 12 MW capacity each. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Grid-scale storage batteries are now economic in many applications; this will increase as batteries continue to decline in cost and improve in performance. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nuclear power plants in the US cannot compete with low-cost natural gas and wind power, so the nuclear plants are either closing or crying for government handouts to stay operating. This is entirely as written on SLB in the Truth About Nuclear Power series. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">New nuclear power plants in the US are hopelessly uneconomic, again as predicted on SLB, with two reactors under construction stopped, while two more are forging ahead at a ridiculous cost and years of delay. The British are embarking on their own nuclear folly, with a twin-reactor behemoth and financial fiasco underway at Hinkley Point C. The French are tottering with their aging reactor fleet, and almost zero plan to replace 75 to 80 percent of their power generating capacity. It's about to be a long, dark night in France. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Climate change science has been proven to be so shaky as to be nearly fraudulent in many cases, with several articles on SLB discussing the shaky foundation of what passes for climate science. In short summary, the false-alarmists are blaming increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, CO2, for warmer temperatures that are actually due to heat radiating off of buildings in cities, more sunshine penetrating the air as air pollution laws took effect, more energy use per capita in cities, and especially the impact over large regions from El Niño warming. What little Arctic ice is or has melted is due to black soot from power plants, jet aircraft, and wildfire ash. We finally have some sanity in the White House on climate change, but engineers must remain vigilant and keep pressing the issue. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another big issue facing the US is how to replace almost 50 percent of the power generating capacity over the next 20 years. Most of the 99 Nuclear plants will be shut down by then, representing approximately 19 percent of power generation. Most coal plants will likely be shut down also, representing approximately 30 percent of power generation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It has been great fun writing SLB these past 10 years, and I look forward to the next 10 and more. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Houston, Texas<br />copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-39181454507448749492017-11-11T12:18:00.003-08:002017-11-11T12:18:58.031-08:00Renewable Energy Better Than All Else - Unsubsidized<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Lazard Study Shows Wind is Lowest Cost for Generation</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the ongoing debates is what is the best technology, or mix of technologies, to provide safe, reliable, affordable, and low-polluting electric power for public consumption. SLB has quite a few articles on this to date. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=electricity&updated-max=2016-04-24T13:02:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=3&by-date=false">see link</a> SLB holds the view that renewable energy systems, especially wind turbines and solar power systems, were not economically viable for many years, but that has changed for the better in the past few years due to ongoing federal and state subsidies. In addition, SLB holds the view that commercial nuclear power plants are far too expensive to build and operate, plus those that presently are operating should be shut down because they are 1) unsafe, and 2) not economic. Also, SLB holds the view that coal-fired power plants in the US should be forced to curb their emissions to meet the Clean Air Act requirements, and compete in the power market if they are able. The stark reality for coal plants is they cannot compete after making the <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HPGGqL3t8oI/WgdRMg9xtkI/AAAAAAAABfA/xSl_ueZOq4ET-q31TehV62MCbTOAo0xKACLcBGAs/s1600/Lazard%2Bv%2B11%2BLCOE%2Ball%2Bforms%2B-%2Bw%2Blines.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HPGGqL3t8oI/WgdRMg9xtkI/AAAAAAAABfA/xSl_ueZOq4ET-q31TehV62MCbTOAo0xKACLcBGAs/s400/Lazard%2Bv%2B11%2BLCOE%2Ball%2Bforms%2B-%2Bw%2Blines.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Figure 1. Lazard LCOE v 11.0 - page 2</b><b>showing Wind as lowest, Nuclear as 4X Wind</b><b>(Wind, Nuclear, and Coal circled in blue)</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
expenditures for pollution abatement equipment. SLB also holds the view that natural gas-fired power plants that use the combined-cycle technology, CCGT, should be installed to the maximum extent possible due to the low capital cost, low operating cost, effective load-following ability, and almost zero pollution. These views are based on the best data available, both recent past and current. Despite being data and evidence-based, these views provoke howls of outrage from many commenters on other blogs. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the midst of all this, the Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, has proposed that the US provide yet another subsidy for nuclear plants and coal plants. The basis for that new subsidy is the supposed benefit to electric power grids from steady, almost continuous baseload power that the nuclear plants and (some) coal plants provide. That topic will be the basis for another post, however. It should be noted that a grid does not need nuclear power for baseload, indeed, several states and many grids have no nuclear plants operating. Also, coal-fired power plants are not required for baseload for a stable grid. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today's article is to highlight and discuss a recent study by Lazard, (worldwide financial advisory and asset management services firm), titled "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 11.0" <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf">see link</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>LCOE Calculation</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Lazard has (on p. 17) a brief description of how it calculates the LCOE, Levelized Cost of Energy: for each technology, using installed capital costs, operating costs, financing via debt and equity, Lazard solves for the $/MWh that provides the required Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the equity investors. This is a sound methodology, one that SLB has also used in such calculations. Note that the Lazard LCOE is a leveraged financing calculation, for example in Wind power, 60 percent debt is allowed at 8 percent per year (presumably long-term bonds), and 40 percent equity is at 12 percent (presumably Preferred Stock with a 12 percent annual return). This is a slightly more complex calculation than others use, where the $/MWh LCOE is determined with a simple 10 percent return on installed costs, plus all operating costs. (But, note that the Lazard cost of capital for Wind is then 9.6 percent (0.6 x 8 + 0.4 x 12 = 9.6), almost the same compared to the simpler case of 10 percent). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The primary results, as shown in Figure 1 above, show that Wind LCOE, unsubsidized, is $30/MWh, (3 cents per kWh). The vertical red line shows that literally nothing, renewable or conventional technologies, has a lower LCOE. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A note on the unsubsidized aspect of the Lazard study. First, the results for nuclear power plants are entirely suspect because nuclear plants would not be built at all, absent a huge number of subsidies. Several articles on SLB discuss the many and quite substantial subsidies that nuclear plants enjoy, summarized here as very limited liability from a meltdown and radiation-induced harm, construction loan guarantees, direct Federal payments for all power produced at 2.3 cents per kWh (for the first 10 years of operation), safety regulations relaxed to allow plants to continue operating, protection from almost all lawsuits during construction, laws changed to allow builders to charge existing customers for construction funds, state funding in the millions per year to "preserve jobs" and keep uneconomic nuclear plants operating, and Federal payments for spent fuel disposal and handling. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is also not quite clear on the coal plant LCOE, if these include or exclude pollution abatement equipment - not including Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS. If no pollution abatement costs are included, then the LCOE is too low because that is a form of federal subsidy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Finally, a note on the low-end costs of nuclear power: Lazard shows installed costs of $6,500 per kW (low end), and $11,800 at the high end (study, p. 11). Certainly in the US, no nuclear plant could be built for under $10,000 per kW, so the low end figure is suspect. Part of the trouble is the time for construction, 69 months (study, p. 20). New nuclear plants in the US and Europe require at least double that, more than 10 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Wind LCOE</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Lazard study has some questionable assumptions that produce the LCOE for Wind, at $30/MWh for the low end. Per p. 19, that is based on on-shore, installed cost of $1200 per kW, and 55 percent annual capacity factor. DoE annual reports thus far have nothing quite so optimistic, instead having $1600 per kW, and 38 percent capacity factor in the best areas. It is not clear to me exactly how Lazard obtained the low-end data for Wind. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The results for wind, onshore and with 2016 results, should be approximately $43 per MWh (since projects are operating today with that total sales price). For US policy makers, it must be noted that the nuclear LCOE of $112 per MWh, low-end per Lazard v. 11.0, is essentially unattainable. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Still, it is nice to see such a study. The general impression that wind is cheaper, and nuclear more expensive, is correct. Other studies have also arrived at the same conclusions. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Marina del Rey, California<br />copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br /><div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-39401831889568944772017-10-29T09:00:00.000-07:002017-10-29T09:00:00.745-07:00Truth From The Marketplace of Ideas <span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Subtitle: Climate Science has Few Negative Consequences</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a follow-up to yesterday's article on the failings of science in the marketplace of ideas, this post describes what truth would look like in science, if a workable marketplace of ideas existed in science. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/10/on-science-and-marketplace-of-ideas.html">see link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Others who write on this suggest that truth is not ascertainable, that is, we cannot know what is true even if a perfect, impartial marketplace of ideas existed. That may be true in a philosophical or existential sense, but in more practical matters such as engineering and hard science, truth is not nearly so elusive. To put it bluntly, "We've seen it done, son." As one with more than 40 years hard experience in chemical engineering, I for certain have seen the truth in engineering. And, since much of engineering is based on hard science, there is much truth there, too. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As just a brief excursion, my engineering experience thus far has encompassed more than 75 oil refineries, chemical plants, and petrochemical plants located around the world. The countries with those plants range from the far north of Canada to southern Brazil, and China to Poland. The simple truth is, those process plants all behaved as engineers expect them to behave, because the truth is known about the chemistry, physics, mathematics, economics, and engineering that are used to design, build, and operate those plants. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In short, my discipline has the version of truth that holds, truth is "a mathematical model that adequately predicts future results." And, that is precisely what we have in chemical engineering: e.g. a model that predicts a pipe of a certain diameter, made of a certain type of steel, and with a certain wall thickness, will not only keep the fluid inside at the specified temperature and pressure, but will also allow the specified volumetric flow rate to occur with a predicted decrease in pressure (pressure drop) as the fluid moves through the pipe. We have thousands of similar truth-telling models, for chemical reactor design, distillation tower design, fired heaters, heat exchangers between fluids, pumps, compressors, control systems, water cooling towers, flare gas systems, and a multitude of other items in the process plants. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, how did chemical engineers get so much right, when climate scientists can't seem to get much of anything right? Climate science has a terrible track record of predicting their truth, with their multiple climate models all failing miserably at predicting future average global temperatures (the models claim the average temperature should have increased substantially, but the measurements show no increase has occurred for 19 to 20 years now.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In stark contrast, chemical engineers have almost a 100 percent success rate in designing, constructing, and operating many hundreds of thousands of entire chemical plants, each of which has within it hundreds and hundreds of individual process systems. (for just two examples, the reader is encouraged to look into the enormously complex chemical processing facility by BASF in Ludwigshaven, Germany. <a href="https://www.basf.com/de/en/company/about-us/sites/ludwigshafen.html">see link</a>. The site has 200 different chemical production plants housed in 2,000 buildings (it's cold there), all integrated to achieve maximum efficiency. Secondly, the gigantic refining, chemical, and petrochemical complex located along 500 miles of the US Gulf of Mexico from Corpus Christi, Texas to Pascagoula, Mississippi)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We can examine several sources of error for truth for engineering, and for climate science. Among those sources of error would be access to the marketplace of ideas, bias in evaluating ideas in the marketplace, and importantly, consequences of failure to eliminate false ideas. A more insidious source of error is the failure to understand, then critically examine the basis for each published paper. What is worse, is a full understanding of what constitutes good science, but deliberate acceptance of erroneous data and calculations to further an agenda.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Access to the marketplace of ideas</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The previous article on SLB discussed access to the marketplace of ideas. In science as well as engineering, there are only a few reputable sources where publications are made. These disciplines are not like the political arena, where literally thousands of arenas exist where politics are discussed. Instead, there are a few journals and a few more technical or scientific societies that publish or present papers at their meetings. A journal has an editor and editorial board that may accept or reject a paper for publication, simply based on its content or conclusions. In some sense, that is acceptable, because crack-pots should not be given access to publish demonstrably false material. Here, the false material would include perpetual motion machines, and the famous (but fictional) automobile carburetor that achieves 200 miles per gallon.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Bias in evaluating ideas</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In climate science, there are concerted efforts to keep out papers with data and conclusions that show there is no cause for alarm from the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is released by burning fossil fuels. This is an example of bias in evaluating ideas. There may be bias due to agendas rather than a desire for the truth. The old saying of 'The ends justifies the means' may be at play. It may be that bias is due to editors who fervently believe the Earth is in imminent danger of overheating and melting the polar ice caps. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That brings up the source of bias mentioned above: editors and peer-reviewers that have a full understanding of what constitutes good science, but deliberately accept erroneous data and calculations to further an agenda. This blog will have much more to say about this. For today, it is simply noted that the global temperature record has within the database hundreds and thousands of temperature measurements from locations such as cities, where increased temperatures over the decades are due entirely to factors other than CO2 increases in the atmosphere. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html">see link</a> to SLB article on non-CO2 causes of warming.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mzpHBuF7lbo/S2JqcVIanSI/AAAAAAAAAEk/uyYfWEGchkkBKYC5KzpLrdETmR8QwKd2QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Fake%2BWarming%2BFig%2B3%2BAbilene%2B-%2Bcomp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="622" data-original-width="1024" height="242" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mzpHBuF7lbo/S2JqcVIanSI/AAAAAAAAAEk/uyYfWEGchkkBKYC5KzpLrdETmR8QwKd2QCPcBGAYYCw/s400/Fake%2BWarming%2BFig%2B3%2BAbilene%2B-%2Bcomp.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 1; False Warming Trend from End-Points<br />Warming Trend is 3.1 deg C per Century </b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another issue is accepting and publishing papers with data that has end-point problems, where the average trend over time is grossly influenced by a few data points at each end of the plotted data. This blog has several articles on this, with the phrase "Abilene Effect." In summary, three very cold winters in 1977, 78, and 79 gave the false impression of a warming trend from 1975 to 2000. That also included a fortuitous El Nino year in 1998, that produced a temporary upward spike in the temperature record. The combination of low temperatures around 1979, and a high temperature in 1998 gave a false warming trend over that time period. It must be emphasized that the warmists in the climate science community frequently insist that the warming in the latter part of the 20th century (1975-2000) is unprecedented; and they (falsely) link that to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/cold-winters-created-global-warming.html">see link</a> to SLB article on the Abilene Effect, and Figure 1 nearby. Note that the cold winters near 1980, and hot year in 1998 occurred in almost every location in the US. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Consequences of failure to eliminate false ideas</b>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What happens in engineering when false ideas are not screened out but are placed into the practice of engineering? In many cases, the engineered process or item fails, with economic loss or harm to humans. Sometimes, the harm includes death. In other cases, there may be enormous devastation, such as from a dam's failure. Engineering typically has serious consequences when bad ideas are not identified. Engineers are held accountable in the courts and by licensing boards for their failures. One notable, and very recent, example is the engineering fiasco in the design and construction of the twin-reactor nuclear power plant in South Carolina at the V.C. Summer site. There, billions of dollars have been spent over a few years in the construction of a nuclear power plant. However, numerous errors resulted in the project being halted and abandoned. Government and private attorneys are sorting out the mess over who did what, and who owes how much to whom. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In contrast, climate science has, to this point in time, very little adverse consequences for advancing false ideas. In fact, there are claims that climate scientists actually benefit from adhering to the false dogma. Publish or perish is certainly true for scientists, and if one can only publish papers based on data that furthers the agenda, then that is what is written for publication. There have been several scientists who have published, somehow, contrary data and suffered career-damaging results. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The false-alarmists in climate science have a long horizon, they say, before real damage occurs. This is not at all like engineering, where we start up a process plant within 2 or 3 years from start of construction. If the plant fails, we know about it right away. Climate science predicts calamity 50 to 100 years in the future. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One more immediate negative consequence to society from a belief in the false dogma of climate science is the approval of new nuclear power plants because the CO2 released is very small from such power plants. (note that electric power is consumed by each nuclear power plant during shutdowns for maintenance and refueling, typically from non-nuclear plants on the grid that produce CO2 in their operations. The CO2-producing power consumption represents approximately 10 percent of the year in terms of time, and a few percent of the nuclear plant's design output. Even after permanent shut-down, a nuclear power plant consumes electricity from the grid for decades to keep spent fuel properly cooled)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What can be done about the false ideas from climate science? The best antidote to bad speech is more speech, to paraphrase a court opinion. What is needed is more debate, more clear and convincing proof that the warmist climate science is based on bad data, has bad statistics, and demonstrably erroneous conclusions. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Abilene Effect above is merely one of the many false ideas put forth by the warmist climate camp. There are others, which will be written on soon on SLB. For a preview, one can simply consider the implications of claimed sealevel rise in a few locations that should have resulted in beaches being underwater by many feet by this time. None of those beaches are underwater. For another instance, one can consider the Arctic sea ice concentration results for the past 12 years - no decline but instead a slight increase in trend over time. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Marina del Rey, California<br />copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<br /><div style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Topics and general links:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Nuclear Power Plants.......<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Climate Change................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-case-against-carbon-dioxide-fatal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Fresh Water......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-california-goal-us-four-and-no-more.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Engineering......................<a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-four-by-sixteen-rule-for-pipe-flow.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a> and <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-in.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a><br />Free Speech.................... <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html" style="color: #de7008;">here</a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Renewable Energy...........</span><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wind" style="color: #de7008; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f6f6f6; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
Roger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.com0