SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics of Energy


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Brumar89 who wrote (82711)11/17/2019 8:35:00 AM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 83300
 
No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous
charles the moderator November 16, 2019

From Forbes

Roger Pielke Contributor

Energy

I research and write about science, policy and politics.

Earlier this week a paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a team of authors led by Aslak Grinsted, a scientist who studies ice sheets at the University of Copenhagen, claimed that “ the frequency of the very most damaging hurricanes has increased at a rate of 330% per century.”

The press release accompanying the paper announced that United States mainland “hurricanes are becoming bigger, stronger and more dangerous” and with the new study, “doubt has been eradicated.”

If true, the paper (which I’ll call G19, using its lead author’s initial and year of publication) would overturn decades of research and observations that have indicated over the past century or more, there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall. These conclusions have been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.

In fact, however, the new PNAS paper is fatally flawed. The conclusions of major scientific assessments remain solid. As I’ll show below, G19 contains several major errors and as a result it should be retracted.

The first big problem with G19 is that it purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends. The economic data that it uses are based on research that I and colleagues have conducted over more than two decades, which makes me uniquely situated to tell you about the mistakes in G19.Compare the counts of hurricanes reported in G19 with those that can be found in climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

From 1900 to 1958, the first half of the period under study, NOAA reports that there were 117 total hurricanes that struck the mainland U.S.. But in contrast, G19 has only 92. They are missing 25 hurricanes. In the second half of the dataset, from 1959 to 2017, NOAA has 91 hurricanes that struck the U.S., and G19 has 155, that is 64 extra hurricanes.

The AP passed along the incorrect information when it reported that the new study looks at “ 247 hurricanes that hit the U.S. since 1900.” According to NOAA, from 1900 to 2017 there were in fact only 197 hurricanes that made 208 unique landfalls (9 storms had multiple landfalls).

Part of this difference can be explained by the fact that G19 focus on economic damage, not hurricanes. If a hurricane from early in the 20th century resulted in no reported damage, then according to G19 it did not exist. That’s one reason why we don’t use economic data to make conclusions about climate. A second reason for the mismatched counts is that G19 counts many non-hurricanes as hurricanes, and disproportionately so in the second half of the dataset.

The mismatch between hurricane counts in G19 versus those of NOAA by itself calls into question the entire paper. But it gets much worse.

The dataset on losses from hurricanes used by G19 to generate its top-line conclusions is based on my research. That dataset has been maintained by a company called ICAT located in Colorado. The ICAT dataset was initially created about a decade ago by a former student and collaborator of mine, Joel Gratz, based entirely on our 2008 hurricane loss dataset (which I’ll call P08).

In the years since, ICAT has made some significant changes to its dataset, most notably, by replacing P08 loss estimates with loss estimates from the “ billion dollar disasters” tabulation kept by the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). The replacement data begins in 1980, at the start of the NCEI dataset.

This process created a new hybrid dataset, from 1900 to 1980 the ICAT dataset is based on P08 and for 1980 to 2018 it is based on NCEI. This is hugely problematic for G19, which was apparently unaware that of the details of the dataset that they had found online.

In our comprehensive update of P08 published last year ( Weinkle et al. 2018, or W18) we explained that the NCEI methodology for calculating losses included many factors that had historically not been included in tabulations of the U.S. National Hurricane Center, “for instance, to include federal disaster aid, federal flood insurance payouts, national and local agricultural commodity effects and other macro-economic impacts.”

That meant that one cannot, as ICAT has done, simply append the NCEI dataset from 1980 to the end of the P08 dataset starting in 1900. They are not apples to apples. Indeed, a big part of our work in the W18 update of P08 was to ensure that the data was apples to apples across the entire dataset, and we performed several statistical consistency checks to ensure that was the case.

The new PNAS paper, G19 unwittingly uses the ICAT dataset that staples together P08 and NCEI. I have shown with several graphs on Twitter why this matters: Before 1940, G19 and W18 loss estimates for individual are just about the same. After 1980, however, G19 loss estimates for individual storms are on average about 33% higher than those of W18. The result is a data incontinuity that introduces spurious trends to the dataset.

wattsupwiththat.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (82712)11/17/2019 8:45:10 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83300
 
Does Greta Thunberg’s Lifestyle Equal Climate Denial? One Climate Scientist Seems To Suggest So.
charles the moderator

It’s been entertaining watching activists on Twitter arrange their circular firing squads~ctm

From Forbes



Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash

Green Tech

We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs.

The climate debate has taken a nasty turn. It is no longer a shouting match between climate affirmers and climate deniers. Now the finger-wagging is taking place among climate affirmers on the subject of personal responsibility for combating climate change.

There are two key actors in this unfolding saga. One embraces the importance of individual responsibility while the other derides it.

Greta Thunberg, the new climate icon, does not fly. She is a vegan and subscribes to the stop-shop philosophy, which means that “you don’t buy new things, consume new things, unless you absolutely have to.” In a recent interview, Greta said, “I want to walk the talk, and to practice as I preach. So that is what I’m trying to do.”

In contrast, Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, suggests that any talk of behavioral changes and personal responsibility reflects a soft form of climate denial. Although he did not mention Greta by name, he said: “First of all, there is an attempt being made by them to deflect attention away from finding policy solutions to global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour…. This approach is a softer form of denial and in many ways it is more pernicious.”

Thunberg v. Mann is now the debate to watch!

Mann’s thesis: The case against personal responsibility

Climate change is a complex problem because it involves moving away from the basic pillar of the modern industrial economy: fossil fuels. The shift requires that governments enact new climate laws and build a renewable energy infrastructure.

Because these are massive, system-wide changes, individual-level actions to become climate virtuous will not suffice. We can buy electric cars, but without charging stations, they are quite useless. And a national network of charging stations can be provided only by the government.

But, as per Mann’s thesis, individual-level actions delay the transition because they allow the fossil fuel industry to blame consumers for the climate crisis. The industry will claim that they are in business because people like their modern lifestyles. For example, people like driving cars: there are over a billion cars in the world today. And as the recent International Energy Agency’s report shows, consumers seem to want bigger and less fuel-efficient cars.

Contrary to the industry claim, the Mann thesis would suggest that people drive cars because governments do not invest in mass transit. People are trapped in their behaviors because of bad public policies, not personal choices.

Thunberg’s thesis: The case for personal responsibility

Climate change is a symptom of overconsumption. If we want to address the climate crisis, we need to demand policy action and change our consumption habits. This is why Greta, the climate activist, does not fly, is a vegan, and adopts a stop-shop philosophy.

But the Greta approach is sending a more profound message: policy advocacy is effective if one walks the climate talk. This is especially relevant for climate scientists who know the seriousness of the climate crisis. Across universities, there is widespread support for Climate Strikes and the Extinction Rebellion. The issue then is how have universities changed their work habits. Have they put themselves on a strict carbon diet?

This guy is absolutely right- it IS a theological debate:

Rocketscientist

November 16, 2019 at 8:35 pm

Oh, for goodness sake this is a theological debate on which is the correct stance for proper climate obeisance. This is a fundamentalist fight over orthodoxy. One can only hope its gets worse. Let them eat their own, as only they can stomach the taste.

Get out the popcorn, and have a seat. I say let the fur fly and may no alarmist be left standing.

Eric Worrall

November 16, 2019 at 7:59 pm

Mann’s view will prevail, hypocrisy beats altruism, especially when that altruism is tainted by ignorance. I suspect we’ve all seen peak Greta.

nicholas tesdorf

November 16, 2019 at 8:21 pm

As often happens, we can now enjoy the sight of the enemy fighting amongst itself and, for a while, leaving us all in peace.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8911/17/2019 8:40:13 PM
   of 83300
 
Italy: Venice ‘on its knees’ after second-worst flood ever recorded

The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage.

The water reached 1.87 meters (6.14 feet) above average sea level Tuesday, the second-highest level ever recorded in the city and just 7 centimeters (2½ inches) lower than the historic 1966 flood. Another wave of exceptionally high water followed Wednesday.

The flooding was caused by southerly winds that pushed a high tide, exacerbated a full moon, into the city.

Rising sea levels because of climate change coupled with Venice’s well-documented sinking make the city built amid a system of canals particularly vulnerable. The sea level in Venice is 10 centimeters (4 inches) higher than it was 50 years ago, according to the city’s tide office.

Brugnaro blamed climate change for the “dramatic situation” and called for a speedy completion of a long-delayed project to construct offshore barriers.

Called “Moses,” the moveable undersea barriers are meant to limit flooding. But the project, which has been opposed by environmentalists concerned about damaging the delicate lagoon ecosystem, has been delayed by cost overruns and corruption scandals, with no launch date in site.

Across the Adriatic Sea, an intense storm with powerful winds caused floods in towns in Croatia and Slovenia.

In the Croatian town of Split, authorities said the flooding submerged the basement area of the Roman-era Diocletian’s Palace, where emergency crews battled to pump out the water.

Hydrographic Institute Croatia said sea levels on Wednesday in Split and Ploce were the highest since 1955, when monitoring started.

apnews.com

Last year, global warming made Venice canals run dry

It's versatile stuff, that global warming

Venice's iconic waterways have run dry after no rain has fallen in weeks. A combination of high atmospheric pressure in the upper Adriatic, cold weather and low tides left the famous canals dry.

Water levels have been reported to be up to 60cm lower than normal levels.

The retreating waters mean gondolas and water taxis have been unable to navigate the city’s elegant canals.

It is the second year in a row that Venice's canals have been left without water despite being prone to heavy flooding several times a year.

A mix of high pressure, low rainful and low tides that are common this time of year have cause Veince to run dry
The Venice canals are running 70 cm below it's normal water level

The low water levels in Venice has caused transport and navigation problems

Studies have indicated the city is sinking at a rate of 1-2mm a year.

In 2015 water levels were as much as 28 inches below normal levels.

Tourists were shocked by the lack of water in the famous city.

Venice’s record low was set in 1934, when the tide was four feet below average.

express.co.uk

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (82714)11/18/2019 6:57:19 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83300
 
Ten years ago, a scandal in climate science broke. Hackers took over a thousand emails from Britain’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and revealed them in a series of releases. These provided the first solid evidence that the climate establishment was trying to suppress physical evidence that nature was not responding to increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed and the climate modelers predicted / projected. Many of the lead authors of the IPCC Assessment Reports were involved in this suppression of physical evidence, which is contrary to the principles of the scientific method.

Some academic institutions conducted investigations of the affair. Generally, but not in every instance, these investigations where the reverse of “show trials” – they were “show exonerations” – avoiding difficult issues and critical questions. The academic community demonstrated a desire to protect sources of revenues rather than to protect scientific integrity. Writing in his particular style, journalist James Delingpole gives a good overview of Climategate and its importance.

Judith Curry discusses the importance of Climategate on her blog. She discusses the timely evaluation by Ross McKitrick, who along with Steve McIntyre, exposed the poor use of statistics that went into the creation of Mr. Mann’s infamous “hockey-stick” used by the IPCC in its Third Assessment Report. [Versions of the hockey-stick appeared in the Summary for Policymakers, showing that human forcings are needed to explain increases in temperatures after 1950. (IPCC 2001, SPM-2). Note that TWTW questions both the accuracy of the reported sharp increase in surface temperatures after 1950 and that increases in CO2 can explain them.] As McKitrick demonstrates, by no objective criteria did the inquiries “exonerate” the scientists involved in Climategate.

Curry also discusses the concerns brought by McIntyre and the use of the algorithm (process of calculations) that created the “hockey-stick” as well as the deletion of the temperature records that contradict the hockey-stick. The deletion of data is contrary to the scientific method.

According to Curry, climate science is in a morass and she tried to suggest ways out of the morass, only to be attacked by others as being a climate heretic. It is becoming quite clear that the climate establishment cannot tolerate criticism, no matter how well intended – similar to a cult.

Five years ago, Curry wrote:

“The net effect of all this is that my ‘academic career advancement’ in terms of professional recognition, climbing the administrative ladder, etc. has been pretty much halted. I’ve exchanged academic advancement that now seems to be of dubious advantage to me for a much more interesting and influential existence that feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.

“Climategate was career changing for me; I’ll let history decide if this was for better or worse (if history even cares).’”

She now writes:

“In the end, Climategate ended my academic career prematurely …. I realized how shallow the ‘academic game’ has become, and the games one needs to play to succeed. Throwing all that off has been personally and intellectually liberating for me.”

Curry brings up major issues, climate science as practiced is very shallow, superficial. It is built on assumptions about the atmosphere that physical evidence is demonstrating false. Increasingly, climate science is becoming more superficial. Yet, the findings of climate scientists, no matter how contrary to the scientific method, are popular among many political types who wish to exercise political control.

A purpose of the scientific method, developed over thousands of years but more intensely in Europe since about 1600, is to eliminate errors. Many examples from science and medicine demonstrate that established authorities do not wish to have their views challenged.

The scientific method provides a set of procedures to test concepts, ideas, to help determine if they are erroneous. Rigorous adherence to the scientific method requires repeated testing concepts or hypotheses against physical evidence when it is obtained. When the concepts or hypotheses fail such testing, they must be modified or discarded. This is an ongoing process that may take years or decades before a full understanding is established in complex issues such as climate. Regardless of their academic qualifications, when scientists disregard the scientific method for political favors, they become political lackeys, not scientists.

Over the next several weeks TWTW will discuss several US and European climate models, and how well the modelers are adjusting their models to increasing observations on what is actually occurring in the atmosphere. See links under Climategate Continued and Model Issues.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8911/19/2019 6:38:53 PM
   of 83300
 
Climate alarmists hide from debate, Stossel sets it straight
Anthony Watts

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change!” says Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Really? 12 years?

John Stossel recently moderated a debate held by The Heartland Institute. Well, not a debate … because climate alarmists who were invited didn’t show.

“Please … let’s have a discussion!” begs astrophysicist Willie Soon. Stossel says the panel convincingly debunked four myths. One is the new claim: “we only have 12 years to act.”

Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”

Climatology Professor David Legates adds, “In twelve years it’ll be 12 more years.” The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust. We already have. People in Holland did. Holland is a low-lying country. Much of it is below sea-level. So many years ago, the Dutch built dikes to prevent flooding. Michaels says, “Are you telling me that the people in Miami are so dumb that they’re just going to sit there and drown?” “You acknowledge though the water is rising?” asks Stossel. Legates interjects, “Yes, the water has been rising for approximately 20,000 years.”

Another myth they bust: government action today will save us. “The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved [by the US] going to ZERO emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius,” says Michaels. It wouldn’t stop global warming but: “You’ll sure have an impoverished dark country.” he continues. “Global warming is why hurricanes are getting worse” and the idea that “carbon dioxide is a pollutant that just does harm” are two other myths the scientists debunk. Stossel concludes by asking, “Are they right?

It’s hard to believe they are when so many serious people are so worried. I wish there were a real debate! Why won’t the other side debate?”

wattsupwiththat.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (82716)11/20/2019 6:26:09 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83300
 
Study Says Fracking is Saving Families $2,500 Annually, Significantly Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Anthony Watts

Research & Commentary by Tim Benson, The Heartland Institute

A report released in October 2019 by the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) estimates increased oil and natural gas production from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) saves American families $203 billion annually on gasoline and electricity bills. This breaks down to $2,500 in savings per family per year.

“From 2007 to 2019, innovation in shale production brought an eight-fold increase in extraction productivity for natural gas and a nineteen-fold increase for oil,” the report states. “These productivity gains have reduced costs and spurred production to record-breaking levels. As a result, the United States has become the world’s largest producer of both commodities, surpassing Russia in 2011 (for natural gas) and Saudi Arabia and Russia in 2018 (for oil). CEA estimates that greater productivity has reduced the domestic price of natural gas by 63 percent as of 2018 and led to a 45 percent decrease in the wholesale price of electricity. Shale production has also reduced the global price of oil by 10 percent as of 2019.”

Eighty percent of the $2,500 annual household savings comes from the reduction in price of natural gas, which has helped lower electricity costs by 45 percent since 2007. The other 20 percent of savings comes from lower costs for gasoline and heating fuels.

For low-income families, who spend the largest share of their income on energy costs, these savings are very significant. For those families in the lowest income quintile, it represents a savings of 6.8 percent of their total income. For the highest income quintile, it still represents a 1.3 percent savings.

“In other words,” the report notes, “lower energy prices are like a progressive tax cut that helps the poorest households the most. The variation in savings stems heavily from differences in spending on electricity: according to the 2018 Consumer Expenditure Survey, the bottom 20 percent of households account for 8.6 percent of expenditures in general but 14.1 percent of electricity expenditures.”

However, these benefits aren’t spread out evenly among the states. The report notes states with anti-fracking and anti-fossil fuel agendas have actually increased costs for their residents. CEA specifically cites New York, which banned fracking and “stymied new pipeline construction.” According to CEA, “these policies have led to falling natural gas production in the State, greater reliance on energy produced elsewhere, and higher energy prices. New York’s failure to approve new pipelines causes consumers in New York and New England to pay an estimated $2 billion more in energy costs each year, or $233 for a family of four.”

The report also notes the positive effects the fracking revolution has had on the environment, estimating it lowered energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 527 million metric tons per year from 2005 to 2017. The represents 9 percent of 2005 GHG emission levels. “This contributed to a greater decline in GHG emissions (relative to the size of the economy) in the United States than in the European Union over the same period,” the report says. “The same is also true of particulate emissions, which have declined much more in the United States (57 percent) than in the European Union (41 percent) … If policy makers had averted the shale revolution through a ban on hydraulic fracturing or other integral components to shale development, energy sector GHG emissions would most likely be higher today. Absent low natural gas prices, renewable electricity sources are unlikely to have enabled similar emissions reductions.”

“The shale revolution provides a striking example of the potential of private sector energy innovation and the resulting implications for consumers and the environment,” the report concludes. “In less than a decade, productivity in oil and gas extraction has increased several fold. As a result, production costs have fallen, making energy goods and services more affordable for consumers, especially lower-income households. By several measures, the shale revolution has led to greater environmental progress in the United States than in the European Union, which exercises more government control and has more stringent emissions policies.”

Fracking can ensure the United States remains the world’s largest energy producer. Policymakers should not put unnecessary and detrimental regulations on the natural gas and oil industries, which are safe, responsible, and have had an enormously positive impact on the economy.

The following documents provide more information about fracking and fossil fuels.

The Value of U.S. Energy Innovation and Policies Supporting the Shale Revolution

whitehouse.gov

This report from the White House Council of Economic Advisors estimates that increased oil and natural gas production due to the fracking revolution is saving American families a combined $203 billion annually, or around $2,500 per family. On top of this, the fracking revolution is benefitting the environment, lowering energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 527 million metric tons between 2005 and 2017.

Debunking Four Persistent Myths about Hydraulic Fracturing
heartland.org
This Heartland Institute Policy Brief by Policy Analyst Timothy Benson and former Heartland communications intern Linnea Lueken outlines the basic elements of the fracking process and then refutes the four most widespread fracking myths, providing lawmakers and the public with the research and data they need to make informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing.

The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing
heartland.org
This comprehensive study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research says fracking brings, on average, $1,300 to $1,900 in annual benefits to local households, including a 7 percent increase in average income, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices.

Local Fiscal Effects of a Drilling Downturn: Local Government Impacts of Decreased Oil and Gas Activity in Five U.S. Shale Regions
rff.org
This study from Resources for the Future finds 82 percent of communities in the five largest shale regions in the United States experienced a net fiscal benefit from hydraulic fracturing despite a large drop in oil and natural gas commodity prices starting in 2014.

Impacts of the Natural Gas and Oil Industry on the U.S. Economy in 2015
heartland.org
This study, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, shows that the natural gas and oil industry supported 10.3 million U.S. jobs in 2015. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage paid by the natural gas and oil industry, excluding retail station jobs, was $101,181 in 2016, which is nearly 90 percent more than the national average. The study also shows the natural gas and oil industry has had widespread impacts in each of the 50 states.

The U.S. Leads the World in Clean Air: The Case for Environmental Optimism
files.texaspolicy.com
This paper from the Texas Public Policy Foundation examines how the United States achieved robust economic growth while dramatically reducing emissions of air pollutants. The paper states that these achievements should be celebrated as a public policy success story, but instead the prevailing narrative among political and environmental leaders is one of environmental decline that can only be reversed with a more stringent regulatory approach. Instead, the paper urges for the data to be considered and applied to the narrative.

What If … Hydraulic Fracturing Was Banned?
heartland.org
This is the fourth in a series of studies produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. It examines what a nationwide ban on hydraulic fracturing would entail. The report’s authors found by 2022, a ban would cause 14.8 million jobs to “evaporate,” almost double gasoline and electricity prices, and increase natural gas prices by 400 percent. Moreover, cost of living expenses would increase by nearly $4,000 per family, household incomes would be reduced by $873 billion, and GDP would be reduced by $1.6 trillion.

What If … America’s Energy Renaissance Never Happened?
heartland.org

This report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy examines the impact the development of shale oil and gas has had on the United States. The report’s authors found that without the fracking-related “energy renaissance,” 4.3 million jobs in the United States may not have ever been created and $548 billion in annual GDP would have been lost since 2009. The report also found electricity prices would be 31 percent higher and gasoline prices 43 percent higher.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Summary for Policymakers
heartland.org
In this fifth volume of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts assess the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
heartland.org
This Heartland Policy Brief by Joseph Bast and Peter Ferrara documents the many benefits from the historic and still ongoing use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, reducing all the negative effects of poverty on human health, and vastly improving human well-being and safety by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks. They are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improving the reliability of the food supply, directly benefiting human health. Further, fossil fuel emissions are possibly contributing to a “Greening of the Earth,” benefiting all the plants and wildlife on the planet.

Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this subject, visit Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute’s website, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database.

wattsupwiththat.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (82717)11/20/2019 6:29:28 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83300
 
Tech Breakthrough Could Spark A Geothermal Energy Boom
[ PS Fracking is useful for geothermal too. ]

By Haley Zaremba - Nov 19, 2019, 4:00 PM CST

Geothermal energy is often billed as one of “the cleanest energy sources” --and with good reason. It’s carbon-free, renewable, and efficient. Even those stoic anti-hyperbolists over at the United States Department of Energy sing its praises, saying, “this vital, clean energy resource supplies renewable power around the clock and emits little or no greenhouse gases -- all while requiring a small environmental footprint to develop.”

While geothermal is one of the superheroes of clean energy production, however, it still has a lot of room for improvement. First and foremost, it needs to be massively scaled up in order to have any real environmental impact or significant market share compared to where it stands now, a speck in the giant shadow of fossil fuels. What’s more, there are significant barriers and high costs to the initial phases of exploration and infrastructure.

“Where to drill?” Science Daily distills the issue into just three words. “This is the basic question in the exploration of underground energy resources, such as geothermal energy. Water in rocks flows along permeable pathways, which are the main target for geothermal drilling. Borehole, core and micro-earthquake data show that the pathways are spatially connected, permeable structures, such as fractures or faults in the rock. However, the geothermal potential of these structures cannot be fully exploited with the techniques available to date.”

Luckily, there has recently been an important breakthrough in the field of geothermal energy exploration and finding those geothermal hotspots (so to speak) thanks to a team of research scientists from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, based in Potsdam. The scientists’ findings, published this month in a Scientific Reports journal article titled “ Geothermal sweetspots identified in a volcanic lake integrating bathymetry and fluid chemistry,” have solved the issue of finding underwater drilling sites by identifying a method that allows the mapping of submerged geological structures in order to determine inflow information essential for developing geothermal energy production.

This development is an essential one, as many of the most promising locations for geothermal energy productions are naturally occurring in volcanic areas that are either near or below the waterline of crater lakes. "However, these lakes hide structures that are important for geothermal energy," explains research team leader and TU Delft Associate Professor Maren Brehme. "In the study, we showed that volcanic lakes such as the Lake Linau in Indonesia, which we investigated, have so-called 'sweet spots', deep holes with fluid inflow from the surrounding rock."

As paraphrased by Science Daily, “the new approach combines bathymetry measurements with geochemical profiles. In this study, bathymetry (from Greek bathýs 'deep' and métron 'measure') is used to map fault zones and geyser-like holes in the lake floor. Its most important feature is the echo sounder. The geochemical profiles from data on temperature, salinity, density and pH at different depths show areas in the lake with inflows from the surrounding geothermal reservoir. The combination allows the distinction between permeable and non-permeable structures, which was previously not possible. With this method, promising locations for drilling can be located more precisely.”

Geothermal energy has been garnering interest and advancing technologically in other corners of the globe as well. In Nevada, “the Department of Energy has awarded a major new grant to the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology to research and expand the use of machine-learning to make the exploration process even more effective” according to reporting by Nevada Today. The new methodology has already resulted in two successful geothermal discoveries in Nevada’s Great Basin where there was no detectable hot water at the surface level.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, Japan has also been investing in geothermal energy with a renewed vigor in the wake of 2011’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, which left both the public and political spheres wary of nuclear energy and in need of new power sources. These simultaneously developing parallel geothermal industries show a bright future for the world’s cleanest energy source, and not a moment too late. In the same month that Donald Trump officially pulled out of the Paris Climate accord, any developments in the world of clean energy are welcome news indeed.

oilprice.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (82718)11/20/2019 6:33:19 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83300
 
The Truth About The World’s Deepest Oil WellBy Irina Slav - Nov 19, 2019, 5:00 PM CST

How deep into the ground do we have to go to tap the resources we need to keep the lights on? How deep into the ground are we able to go? These are the sort of questions that spur invention and lead to groundbreaking discoveries.

The first oil well drilled in Texas in 1866 was a little over 100 feet deep: the No 1 Isaac C. Skillern struck oil at a depth that, from today’s perspective, is ridiculously shallow. Ten years ago, the latest data from the Energy Information Administration shows, the average depth of U.S. exploration oil wells was almost 7,800 feet. It’s safe to assume that over these past ten years, the average well depth has only increased from there.

Yet the world’s deepest oil well is not in the United States. It’s in Russia, off Sakhalin Island and it extends 15 km or 49,000 feet into the ground. The production well, referred to as O-14, was completed in 2017 by Rosneft and Exxon, beating five previous world records for deepest wells, all drilled at the same field: Chayvo.



Source: Energy and Capital

But is the O-14 really 49,000 feet deep? The short answer is no, because there is one little catch: directional drilling.

Unfortunately, not all news sources on the internet are familiar with it, so if you Google “the world’s deepest oil field”, the top results will tell you it’s either the O-14 or one of its Chayvo predecessors.

A 2017 infographic from Fuel Fighter offered some impressive context for the supposedly massive depth of the Rosneft/Exxon well. A well that is 49,000 feet deep is, for example, deeper than the highest building in the world—the Burj al Khalifa in Dubai—is tall. The Burj is a meager 2,722 feet tall by comparison.

The well at Chayvo is, according to the infographic, also deeper than the world record for a hot-air balloon flight: 21,000 feet. It is also deeper than Mount Everest is tall, at 29,000 feet. And that’s not all. The newest well at Chayvo extends deeper into the ground than planes can fly in the air. The standard commercial airline flight height is 39,000 feet.

“Impressive” is too weak a word for these kinds of depths. “Amazing” would be more apt—if only this depth were true.

There is a difference between a well’s actual vertical depth and the total depth of a well that is drilled first vertically and then at an angle from the vertical hole. This is called directional drilling and is increasingly popular in the oil and gas industry.

Rosneft states it on its website, in a press release on the completion of O-14, that the total depth of the well, including the vertical and the directional section, is 15 km, of which the non-vertical section extends 14.13 km, or 46,900 feet.

In other words, the true vertical depth of the well is less than 1 km or 3,280 feet. The so-called “measured depth” (the 15 km/49,000 feet) is impressive as well, of course. It is simply not the same as the “true vertical depth” that would have lent credence to all those amazing comparisons with buildings and flight heights.

And then, this year, someone called out all the media who carried the Fuel Fighter infographic on their mistake. In an April 2019 article for climate change website Watts Up with That, David Middleton noted that the information about the deepest well was misleading because it was drilled directionally.

The True Top Spot

So, if not the O-14, which oil well is the deepest in the world? In terms of true vertical depth, the Bertha Rogers No 1 natural gas well in the Anadarko Basin used to be the deepest in the world, at over 31,400 feet. Unfortunately, at this depth the drillers struck liquid sulfur, which put an end to plans to continue drilling.

In terms of vertical depth, though, BP’s Tiber field in the Gulf of Mexico, drilled by the infamous Deepwater Horizon, became the location for the deepest oil well. The Tiber well’s depth - true vertical depth - was more than 35,000 feet.

There is also a record-breaker in terms of water depth: Maersk Drilling’s Raya-1 well offshore Uruguay was drilled in water depths of 3,400 meters or 11,156 feet.

Setting the Record …. Straight

So, the deepest oil well in the world is not actually the world’s longest, and that’s fine. After all, the purpose of Rosneft and Exxon was to pump oil, not see how far they can go into the ground: a feat in which serious challenges abound.

In drilling, it’s all about pressure and resistance. The deeper you drill, the greater both the pressure and the resistance. To make matters more interesting, there is also the issue of higher temperature deep in the ground. The deeper you go, the hotter it becomes as you approach the Earth’s mantle, which, near its border with the crust, can reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit. So, the temperature in an ultradeep borehole is not just higher than surface temps: it tops 180 degrees Celsius at a depth of 12 km, or 39,370 feet.

How do we know? We know because of the deepest hole drilled by humans into the Earth’s crust. That was not drilling for oil, though. The Kola superdeep borehole, drilled in Russia’s Far East during the ‘70s and early ‘80s, was drilled simply to see how far into the ground we can go. Apparently, 12 kilometers was the maximum at the time before technical difficulties related to pressure, resistance, and heat became overwhelming.

For all the media misunderstanding surrounding them, the Chayvo wells - all but one of them record-breakers in total measured depth - are evidence of a trend that we are already seeing across the world. The era of the gushers when oil didn’t just flow out but burst out, is long over. The remaining oil reserves we have are deeper and harder to find, not just in Russia’s Far East. We might see some day a well whose true vertical depth is indeed almost 50,000 feet. As long as it’s economically viable.

oilprice.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Brumar8911/21/2019 6:13:33 PM
   of 83300
 
New Report Says Fracking Saved Americans $1.1 Trillion Over Past Decade
Anthony Watts November 21, 2019

Research & Commentary by Tim Benson

A new report prepared by Kleinhenz & Associates for the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program shows increased oil and natural gas production from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has saved American consumers $1.1 trillion in the decade from 2008 to 2018. This breaks down to more than $900 in annual savings to each American family, or $9,000 in cumulative savings.

These savings come from the lower cost of natural gas due to increased production. According to the report, “natural gas as measured using the average Henry Hub price has declined from a 2008 high of $8.86 to an estimated 2018 price of $3.16.” For households in the lowest economic quintile, the bottom 20 percent, the lower price for natural gas amounts to a savings of 2.7 percent of their annual income. “This is equivalent to a raise of 2.7% for the poorest households,” the report states.

The paper singles out the states of the “Shale Crescent”—Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia—noting they are “responsible for 85 percent of the net growth in natural gas daily production over the past ten years and now [account] for nearly one-third of U.S. natural gas annual production.”

In these states, total savings since 2009 amount to almost $93 billion ($45 billion in Ohio, $43 billion in Pennsylvania, and $3 billion in West Virginia). For industrial and manufacturing end users in the region, savings were more than $25 billion ($13.9 billion in Ohio, $9.5 billion in Pennsylvania, $1.3 billion in West Virginia).

These findings are backed up by a series of reports from the Consumer Energy Alliance. The trade group found lower natural gas prices due to increased shale development led to more than $40 billion in savings for Ohio residents from 2006 to 2016. In Pennsylvania, savings were more than $30 billion. West Virginia residents experienced savings of more than $4 billion.

It should come as no surprise that shale development is spurring economic growth across the “Shale Crescent” and the United States as a whole. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the shale industry alone drove 10 percent of U.S. GDP from 2010 to 2015. In 2018, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, oil and gas extraction accounted for $218 billion of U.S. economic output.

Hydraulic fracturing activity delivers $1,300 to $1,900 in annual benefits to local households, including “a 7 percent increase in average income, driven by rises in wages and royalty payments, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices,” according to a December 2016 study conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, Princeton University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Another study published in the American Economic Review in April 2017 found “each million dollars of new [oil and gas] production produces $80,000 in wage income and $132,000 in royalty and business income within a county. Within 100 miles, one million dollars of new production generates $257,000 in wages and $286,000 in royalty and business income.”

Hydraulic fracturing enables the cost-effective extraction of once-inaccessible oil and natural gas deposits. These energy sources are abundant, inexpensive, environmentally safe, and can ensure the United States remains a leading energy producer far into the future. Therefore, policymakers in the “Shale Crescent” should refrain from placing unnecessary burdens on the natural gas and oil industries, which are safe and positively impact their states’ economies.

The following documents provide more information about fracking and fossil fuels.

The Value of U.S. Energy Innovation and Policies Supporting the Shale Revolution
whitehouse.gov
This report from the White House Council of Economic Advisors estimates that increased oil and natural gas production due to the fracking revolution is saving American families a combined $203 billion annually, or around $2,500 per family. On top of this, the fracking revolution is benefitting the environment, lowering energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 527 million metric tons between 2005 and 2017.

Debunking Four Persistent Myths about Hydraulic Fracturing
heartland.org
This Heartland Institute Policy Brief by Policy Analyst Timothy Benson and former Heartland communications intern Linnea Lueken outlines the basic elements of the fracking process and then refutes the four most widespread fracking myths, providing lawmakers and the public with the research and data they need to make informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing.

The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing
heartland.org
This comprehensive study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research says fracking brings, on average, $1,300 to $1,900 in annual benefits to local households, including a 7 percent increase in average income, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices.

Local Fiscal Effects of a Drilling Downturn: Local Government Impacts of Decreased Oil and Gas Activity in Five U.S. Shale Regions
rff.org
This study from Resources for the Future finds 82 percent of communities in the five largest shale regions in the United States experienced a net fiscal benefit from hydraulic fracturing despite a large drop in oil and natural gas commodity prices starting in 2014.

Impacts of the Natural Gas and Oil Industry on the U.S. Economy in 2015
heartland.org
This study, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, shows that the natural gas and oil industry supported 10.3 million U.S. jobs in 2015. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage paid by the natural gas and oil industry, excluding retail station jobs, was $101,181 in 2016, which is nearly 90 percent more than the national average. The study also shows the natural gas and oil industry has had widespread impacts in each of the 50 states.

The U.S. Leads the World in Clean Air: The Case for Environmental Optimism
files.texaspolicy.com
This paper from the Texas Public Policy Foundation examines how the United States achieved robust economic growth while dramatically reducing emissions of air pollutants. The paper states that these achievements should be celebrated as a public policy success story, but instead the prevailing narrative among political and environmental leaders is one of environmental decline that can only be reversed with a more stringent regulatory approach. Instead, the paper urges for the data to be considered and applied to the narrative.

What If … Hydraulic Fracturing Was Banned?
heartland.org
This is the fourth in a series of studies produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. It examines what a nationwide ban on hydraulic fracturing would entail. The report’s authors found by 2022, a ban would cause 14.8 million jobs to “evaporate,” almost double gasoline and electricity prices, and increase natural gas prices by 400 percent. Moreover, cost of living expenses would increase by nearly $4,000 per family, household incomes would be reduced by $873 billion, and GDP would be reduced by $1.6 trillion.

What If … America’s Energy Renaissance Never Happened?
heartland.org
This report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy examines the impact the development of shale oil and gas has had on the United States. The report’s authors found that without the fracking-related “energy renaissance,” 4.3 million jobs in the United States may not have ever been created and $548 billion in annual GDP would have been lost since 2009. The report also found electricity prices would be 31 percent higher and gasoline prices 43 percent higher.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Summary for Policymakers
heartland.org
In this fifth volume of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts assess the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
heartland.org
This Heartland Policy Brief by Joseph Bast and Peter Ferrara documents the many benefits from the historic and still ongoing use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, reducing all the negative effects of poverty on human health, and vastly improving human well-being and safety by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks. They are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improving the reliability of the food supply, directly benefiting human health. Further, fossil fuel emissions are possibly contributing to a “Greening of the Earth,” benefiting all the plants and wildlife on the planet.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (82720)11/22/2019 6:24:05 AM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 83300
 
Delingpole: ‘Greta Who?’ China Ramps up Coal-Fired Energy Production
NOVEMBER 21, 2019

tags: China

By Paul Homewood



A new report out from the Global Energy Monitor (formerly Coal Swarm) brings news that China has 148GW of coal-fired capacity under construction or likely to be resumed after being suspended.

Dellers takes up the story:



China is planning massively to ramp up its coal-fired energy production. This makes a nonsense of claims by gullible Western politicians and dishonest environmental activists that China is as keen as anyone to do its bit to ‘combat climate change.’

Bloomberg reports that China now has enough coal-fired power plants in the pipeline to match the entire capacity of the European Union, ‘driving the expansion in global coal power and confounding the movement against the polluting fossil fuel.’

It says:

The nation has almost 148 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity under active construction or likely to be resumed after being suspended, Global Energy Monitor, a non-profit group that tracks coal stations, said in the report Thursday based on plant-by-plant data. That’s almost equivalent to 150 gigawatts of existing coal fleet capacity in the EU and more than the combined 105 gigawatts under construction in the rest of the world, it said.

In contrast to many other countries, including the U.K.’s pledge to shut all coal plants by 2025, Beijing remains committed to coal as its biggest source of power, representing a major challenge to global emissions reduction targets. Its additions in the 18 months to June dwarf declines elsewhere in the world, according to the report.

None of this will come as the slightest surprise to climate realists. One of their main arguments against concerted government action by the West to decarbonise its economies is that it takes no account of emerging economies like India’s and, especially, China’s. Any attempts to cut carbon dioxide production in Western economies are more than offset by the growth in China’s CO2 output.

This was predicted in a report published last year by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

As the report’s author, Patricia Adams explained:

“The Chinese have spent a lot of money on renewables without results on anything like the scale required. So despite their continuing outward support for the green agenda, China is actually going all out for fossil fuels. The Communist Party’s grip on power depends on it.”

In his foreword to the paper, former U.S. Ambassador and U.S. special envoy to the UNFCCC Dr Harland Watson said:

“Many in the environmental community look to China to assume the role of global climate leader. But Patricia Adams questions China’s interest in assuming this role as the need for continued economic growth means securing new energy supplies will take priority over climate change concerns.”

The report was, of course, largely ignored by the mainstream media which prefers to listen to ‘experts’ like Nicholas Stern.

Only three years ago Nicholas Stern – amusingly billed by the Guardian as ‘an eminent climate economist’, even though his infamous ‘Stern Report’ has been widely discredited for its poor understanding of climate science and economics – was hailing China’s ‘Coal Peak’ as a ‘Turning point in the history of the world’.

The Guardian‘s July 2016 report began with a flourish:

The global battle against climate change has passed a historic turning point with China’s huge coal burning finally having peaked, according to senior economists.

They say the moment may well be a significant milestone in the course of the Anthropocene, the current era in which human activity dominates the world’s environment.

China is the world’s biggest polluter and more than tripled its coal burning from 2000 to 2013, emitting billions of tonnes of climate-warming carbon dioxide. But its coal consumption peaked in 2014, much earlier than expected, and then began falling.

According to ’eminent’ economist Stern, this was a key moment in the war on climate change:

“I think it is a real turning point,” said Lord Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, who wrote the analysis with colleagues from Tsinghua University in Beijing. “I think historians really will see [the coal peak of] 2014 as a very important event in the history of the climate and economy of the world.”

Except, of course, that it wasn’t and it isn’t. China wants economic growth and feels under no obligation to kowtow to the green sky fairy invented by activists in the West to justify their fixation with renewable energy.

This tension between green aspirations and economic reality is only likely to intensify.

According to a separate report, produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute, growing fossil fuel output is likely to ‘swamp’ any attempts agreed by the Paris Climate Accord to limit global CO2 output.

Oil, gas and coal output already planned or in the pipeline will overwhelm efforts to cap global warming at levels consistent with a liveable planet, the UN and leading research groups warned Wednesday […]

[…] “We show for the first time just how big the disconnect is between Paris temperature goals and countries’ plans and policies for coal, oil and gas production,” said lead author Michael Lazarus, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute’s US Center.

This “production gap”—between output in the pipeline and the Paris climate goals—is largest for coal, according the report, a joint project by the UN Environment Programme and four climate change research centres.

Countries plan to produce 150 percent more coal by 2030 than would be consistent with a 2C world, and 280 percent more than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5C.

Greta Thunberg can wag her little index finger all she likes. The global economy just isn’t listening.

breitbart.com

Despite appearing to level off in 2016, coal fired generation in China has resumed its rapid rise since, increasing by 14% between 2016 and 2018:



BP Energy Review



Last year, China accounted for 47% of the world’s coal fired power, and currently has about 1000GW of coal fired capacity. Potentially this new tranche of capacity could increase China’s coal generation by 15%, though my guess is that it will be offset by closure of older, polluting plants.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10