Sunday, 29 November 2015

Renewable energy makes radioactive waste

This is a pile of waste near Fort Meade FL deemed too radioactive by the EPA to be used for any applications like paving roads. It is phosphogypsum, a byproduct of mining phosphate fertilizer and it contains relatively high concentrations of radium. Corn requires more phosphate than other crops and the intensive agriculture of corn for biofuels has increased the consumption of phosphates - and the amount of radioactive waste produced. Now it's one thing to say that coal releases radioactivity to the environment. Everyone already knows coal is evil. But here it's the supposedly environmentally friendly biofuels that are generating radioactive waste. This wasn't caused by any once-in-a-thousand years earthquake & tsunami. This is normal operations waste.

by Jaro Franta

How the DDT "ban" killed millions

"Now, what did the banning of DDT do to the peoples of Africa? There’s been no effective control. The world got the impression that they were spraying the jungle; this was not so.

At that time most of the use of DDT, effectively, was by spraying inside of the huts once a year or twice a year — especially the lower part — with DDT. And the insects, the mosquitoes, during the day when the sun is bright outside, they hide in darker parts. And it used to — In the case of India, when they started using DDT for malaria control, that swamp, the Torai area, was worthless. There was probably… no one knows how many millions of people with malaria. It’s not only a killer, it’s a debilitator, people can’t work effectively. It affects different people in different ways. So Ceylon, the little island, India had reduced [the number of people with malaria] from millions down to 250-300,000 people, when the ban came [on DDT]. They took it off and [the number of people with malaria] went back into the millions. In the case of Sri Lanka, they were down to 14. Took the ban off and it exploded. This is the same story, many places."

--Norman Borlaug

Tuesday, 10 November 2015

The problem with climate alarmists

I have no problems with climate science

My issues with alarmist climate campaigners are:

  • Alarmism, and spreading moral panic. Looking back over the course of my life, I can honestly say every moral panic I've witnessed did more harm than good
  • Corruption of free speech and the public sphere by pursuing "no platform" campaigns of ostracization and demonization against "deniers"
  • Promoting pseudo-science. Prioritizing alarmist climate models over the best evidence is anti-science
  • Climate campaigners don't even have the best solutions:
    • Their focus on energy saving starved the developing world of much needed wealth
    • Their focus on subsiding expensive non-carbon energy makes energy more expensive for those in poverty, and increases poverty
    • Downplaying R&D. In terms of solutions: energy R&D should have priority over the two mistaken policies above. It's the only proper solution

Monday, 2 November 2015

Germany will miss its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

Today, the Guardian tell us:

While Britain visualises a nuclear future, Angela Merkel’s aim of replacing it with renewables by 2022 is well under way
it being nuclear power

What is meant here by replacing nuclear power with renewables? One can't replace dispatchable and baseload nuclear power with intermittent renewable energy. One can't replace very low greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nuclear power with higher emitting renewable energy. The LCA figure for nuclear power = 14. The LCA for wind and solar = 100 (when inefficiencies in fossil fuel backup power is accounted for).

Germany's Energiewende has made their GHG emissions worse. The 6 years 2009 to 2014 (inclusive) saw no reduction in German greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. German GHG emissions in 2009 = 912 Mt CO2eq. The same in 2014. See: Germany’s 2020 greenhouse gas target is no longer feasible. These 6 years saw the greatest increase in renewable energy (wind and solar) for any country in Europe. So according to the spin-masters of renewable energy over at the Guardian, there should've been a big reduction in emissions. Post-Fukushima also saw the closure of half of Germany's nuclear power plants (a reduction from 25% of its electricity in 2010 to 17% today).

In 2007 Germany set itself the target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 compared with 1990. In 1990 there were emissions of around 1250 million tonnes CO2 equivalent; the target for 2020 is therefore 750 million tonnes. According to the latest estimates, Germany emitted around 950 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 2013. This equates to a reduction of 23.8 percent ...the programme can bring about a total reduction of 82 million tonnes
-- Climate Action Programme 2020

Germany admits it will not meet its 2020 target. The forecast is 80 Mt CO2eq off : a reduction of 33.6%, compared with the 40% target. By 2022, they will be in a worse position still. All this leads me to understand that emissions reductions are not the real goal of renewable energy and anti-nuclear power campaigners.

The eurostat figures paint an even less optimistic picture: Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of energy consumption