Daily Archives: March 31, 2011

Pollution-free wind power?

These things are clean, safe and reliable, right? Umm…

Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for Environment?

SUMMARY

Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News examines how mining rare earth minerals — considered to be an obscure yet profitable industry, is causing a major environmental dilemma in China.

Transcript

LINDSEY HILSUM: It doesn’t look very green. Rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals, acids, sulfates, ammonia. The workers have little or no protection.

But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you’re saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China.

Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China’s Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets. He’s well aware of the issues. (PBS Newshour)

Continue reading

Don’t miss Denis Rancourt on carbon trading and climate

Post echoed from Denis Rancourt, Climate Guy h/t Marc Morano

“The Carbon Rush” – A done deal…

Carbon trading is rushing ahead under the directives of the real bosses. You know it’s a done deal when the Left intelligentsia makes a documentary film to question whether or not it’s the best idea… HERE.

Whether or not it’s the best “solution” to a displaced and fabricated problem that is accepted because establishment scientists are objective, smart, and well intentioned… (vs. careerist, obedient and naive)

The only hope to kill this new instrument of global financial predation would be to reject “climate change” for the psycho-transfer device that it is and to start thinking for ourselves but it ain’t gonna happen on the Left…

Versus a video attempt to inject sanity:

Climate Change Hearing, testimonies and comments

Full Committee Hearing – Climate Change
2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 | Mar 31, 2011 10:00am – 12:00pm

Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy

Continue reading

On “robust” climate science

Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers
By P Gosselin

I get mail, too.

Though not not very friendly at times. But here’s one from reader Jimbo who delivers quite a neat collection of contradictory reports. No matter if it’s hot-cold, wet-dry, green-brown, windy-calm, bad-nice – its all due to manmade climate change. (NoTricksZone)

The Hypothesis That CO2 Vapours Drive Global Temperature Change Is Crumbling As New Theories Gain Credibility

As the monthly empirical evidence keeps pouring in, the AGW hypothesis and climate model simulations that portray atmospheric CO2 levels being the principal driving force behind global temperature change looks weaker and weaker. A growing chorus of scientists worldwide are now saying that the idea that global warming is caused by ‘CO2 vapours’ is a quaint, 1800′s European hypothesis, but severely lacking in any robust, modern empirical evidence. (C3H)

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity
Steven Goddard

Cook explains that the correlation between tree rings and thermometers is not reliable, so Mann should selectively throw out the data for any years which don’t support the hypothesis he is determined to prove. (Real Science)

There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

Spinmeister Michael Mann has fired off a reply to the editor of a newspaper which published an article critical of his work, again claiming his hockey stick graph, one of the most thoroughly discredited papers of the modern age, was affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

“…the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 ..”

The NAS report did nothing of the sort, and in fact validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M) and the Wegman Report: (HockeySchtick)

Book Review – Climate of Corruption
March 30th, 2011 by Foxy

In the past several years, there seems to be a growing number of people who believe that global warming is a very orchestrated political and environmental hoax. As hype around Earth Day is growing (April 22, 2011), I thought it would be interesting to read, “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” by Larry Bell. Now Larry Bell is no more a climate scientist than Al Gore. He is a space architect and doesn’t pretend to be anything different. But Bell believes there is a conspiracy amongst us relating to the horrors of climate change that center around fossil-fuel CO2 emissions.

He writes, “Understand that the real impetus behind the cooked numbers and doomspeak of the global warmers has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution (“social justice”).

Bell acknowledges that climate change is real – only that it is not man-made- and says that no one can reliably predict what Earth’s global climate will be in a decade or longer. What he sees as the real problem is the global energy supply dilemma, one that he believes has no simple solution. (Biofuel Blog War)

Junior can be such a dill at times

Junior’s “justification” for the imagined need to “decarbonize” – something bad might happen sometime, not necessarily related to global temperature. Wonder if he ever considers the certain ills to befall people with a shortfall in affordable energy?

Global Temperature Trends

THIS POST FIRST APPEARED 9 DEC 2009. SEE THIS FOR MORE.

In an earlier post I made the case that one needs to know only two things about the science of climate change to begin asking whether accelerating

  • decarbonization of the economy might be worth doing:
  • Carbon dioxide has an influence on the climate system

This influence might well be negative for things many people care about.
That is it. An actual decision to accelerate decarbonization and at what rate will depend on many other things, like costs and benefits of particular actions unrelated to climate and technological alternatives. In this post I am going to further explain my views, based on an interesting question posed in that earlier thread. What would my position be if it were to be shown, hypothetically, that the global average surface temperature was not warming at all, or in fact even cooling (over any relevant time period)? Would I then change my views on the importance of decarbonizing the global energy system?

And the answer is … no! (Roger Pielke Jr.)

The president sabotages American energy while Israel looks to become a major supplier

Obama calls for deep cuts in U.S. oil imports

President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed to cut U.S. oil imports by a third over 10 years, a goal that eluded his predecessors and seen as extremely ambitious by analysts skeptical it can succeed. (Reuters)

Pump And Circumstance

Energy Policy: President Obama wants to cut oil imports by a third after telling Brazil he wants to be their best customer. Cellulosic ethanol won’t cut it, and neither will talking out of both sides of your teleprompter.

Continue reading

Chris Horner on the president’s war on energy

Obama’s ‘Energy Security’ Pivot
By Chris Horner

When you’re told that windmills and solar panels will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil — because, apparently, we get electricity from oil, or else drive wind- and solar-powered cars, not sure — you ought to smell a rat.

When a president accelerates his anti-energy campaign with the supposedly protective gauze of rhetoric about still fully supporting nuclear power — words, rather contrary to actions, like canceling the one place we had built to store spent material, after 15 years and $13 billion energy-tax dollars — you ought to demand he stop playing you for a fool.

Japan’s problems largely arose from on-site storage of spent fuel. Actual support for nuclear power here would involve immediately recognizing we shouldn’t be doing that here any longer, and promptly reversing the effort to kill Yucca Mountain. After all, 61 of our 104 nuclear facilities are full up. No more room at the inn.

But nope. Words are enough. There’s a war on energy to conduct, after all. (American Spectator)

“Renewables” hope to profit from Japan’s tragedy but problems intrude

Wind, Sun Power Still Face Hurdles
Russell Gold

The slow-motion crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant has rekindled worries about relying on atomic power for electricity. Climbing oil and gasoline prices are again draining wallets. And President Barack Obama Wednesday outlined plans to cut U.S. reliance on foreign oil, including boosting ethanol output.

The times would seem to favor the rise of renewable energy—power derived from sources such as solar, wind and biomass. Renewables have grown up in recent years, attracting blue-chip investors and fostering supply chains that span continents. Technologies have improved and costs have fallen. (WSJ)

Windfarms threaten many bird species with extinction
Mark Duchamp

Continue reading

A rational man, a Democrat and a peace activist talk nuclear power

Lawrence Solomon: You can trust Japan’s radiation data, Greenpeace says

Greenpeace’s independent radiation monitoring teams have confirmed that the Japanese authorities are not lying about the extent of radiation released from the Fukushima nuclear plant. At a press briefing today in Tokyo, Greenpeace radiation safety expert Jan van de Putte stated that “our measurements verified the authorities’ data,” news that will be welcome to those who have been suspicious about the data on radiation leaks that the Japanese government has been relaying to the public. (Financial Post)

Feinstein questions US nuke-fuel safety amid Japanese crisis
By Alicia M. Cohn

A senior Senate Democrat on Wednesday questioned standard U.S. practices for storing used nuclear fuel in light of the unfolding crisis at Japan’s stricken reactors.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee’s energy panel, pressed Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko at a hearing on the Japanese reactor disaster.

“It is clear that we lack a comprehensive national policy to address the nuclear fuel cycle,” said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Energy and Water subcommittee. (E2 Wire)

‘Our Most Dangerous Illusion Is that We Can Control Nuclear Energy’

In a SPIEGEL interview, peace activist and author Jonathan Schell discusses the lessons of the Fukushima disaster, mankind’s false impression that it can somehow safely produce electricity from the atom, and why he thinks the partial meltdown in Japan could mark a turning point for the world. (Spiegel)

More CCS nonsense – it doesn’t matter whether we can do it or not

Yes, yes, “tuck in” CO2 just like one of our children, snug as a bug in a rug… what lovely nonsense imagery.

Now for the bad news. Of course we can sequester CO2, with enough energy and effort we can do most anything but that matters not at all. What matters is whether we should do it and the answer is a resounding “No!”.

There is no value in so doing, so any cost is pure waste. Forget about CCS – what’s so hard to understand?

Tucking Carbon Into the Ground
By MATTHEW L. WALD

IF carbon is going to be kept out of the atmosphere, a lot of it is probably going to have to be injected back into the ground from which it was mined as coal or extracted as oil or gas.

Not even the most ardent optimist about alternative energy would suggest that fossil fuels are going away soon. So carbon capture and sequestration — C.C.S. in environmental shorthand — is essential to a national energy policy. But almost all the discussion has been on the C.C. and not much on the S.

Yet there are signs of progress. The first large-scale sequestration project in North America, on the banks of the Ohio River in New Haven, W.Va., is going to complete its mission soon, with an unexpected bit of good news.

In one kind of rock, at least, carbon dioxide seems to slip into the small open spaces more easily than projected, meaning the job may be easier than thought. And more than 500 miles to the west, near Meredosia, Ill., a bigger project to try injecting carbon into a more common kind of rock is making progress toward start-up. (NYT)

Nat Brown rightly bags plastic bans

Bag the Plastic Ban

Banning or taxing plastic bags causes more problems than it solves.

Before they came for our light bulbs, they targeted our plastic bags. And they’re still after them. (Nat Brown, NRO)

If only they were a trustworthy organization that did what they claimed

Unfortunately EPA has a long history of fabricating absurd “benefits” from “addressing” trivial to non-extant “risks” while undervaluing the costs of “action” by orders of magnitude.

New Director at EPA Plans Shakeup of Laggard Chemical-Risk System

By JEREMY P. JACOBS of Greenwire

One of the most important U.S. EPA officials is somebody you probably don’t know.

Vincent Cogliano is the new acting director of the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, which assesses health risks posed by — you name it — automobile exhaust, tobacco smoke, chemicals in drinking water. EPA uses the assessments to guide its regulation writing, the focus of intense scrutiny these days on Capitol Hill.

IRIS, Cogliano said, is “kind of the center of everything EPA does scientifically.”

“IRIS is EPA’s program to evaluate scientific information on the adverse health effects of chemical contaminants in the environment,” he said. “IRIS contains information on more than 500 chemicals and is consulted by scientists and decisionmaking officials in EPA and other environmental health agencies worldwide.” (Greenwire)

Yielding to wackos and killjoys is really stupid

Look, if you’re superstitious about food colorings then don’t feed them to your kids but my interest in this non issue expired when observing that parents’ impression of their kids’ behavior was affected by whether the parents were told their little darlings had been given food colorings or not.

The wackos are out to get warnings (what’s the harm, right?) which they will then present in the EU as “proof” of unacceptable risk to get a ban there, which they then leverage to get bans elsewhere. It’s how the anti-capitalists work and we must never yield to them.

The only acceptable response is that the colorings have been reviewed and found safe, that’s an end to it, now go away.

Why do we pander to the scaremongers and fear profiteers?

Consumer group urges ban or warning on food dyes

The color dyes used to brighten cereals, snacks and drinks help make some children hyperactive and should be banned or at least carry a warning, critics told U.S. government advisers on Wednesday.

Continue reading