Covid-19 recovery rate is 99%

Which the media will never tell you
_________

Covid-19 recovery rate is 99%

Ron Hill

It is about politics. The left and the media wants everyone in fear. If the population ever accepts reality as observed case-fatality ratio which according to the John Hopkins website, puts the US at a low death rate of 3.3% per 100,000.

The recovery rate is 99% (which the media will never tell you) and the mortality rate is dropping.

The case-fatality ratio for the flu in 2017-2018 was 8.8%. There is a difference of dying from the virus and dying with it.

They are counting everyone who dies with it as dying from it because there is money to be made off this virus.

The post Covid-19 recovery rate is 99% appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/3kitwiG

August 5, 2020 at 11:59AM

2020 the 2012 Warning – Deep Earthquakes Increasing, M 6.5 Vanuatu

The Video Content has been made available for informational and educational purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. The fair use doctrine in U.S. copyright law allows individuals to use copyrighted material to create original works.

It includes criticism, news reporting, research, and derivative works.

Not for Children under 13 years of age

Record Crop Yields Punk The Denver Channel’s Climate Alarmism

Among the top Google News results today for “climate change,” The Denver Channel published an article asserting climate change is devastating crop production. The Denver Channel is either inexcusably unaware of on-point United Nations crop data, or The Denver Channel is deliberately telling falsehoods. Objective data show consistent, steady growth in global crop yields, with new records set virtually every year. Tally The Denver Channel as yet another purveyor of fake climate news.

The Denver Channel article is titled, “Farmers across the world worried about climate change impacting their crops.” The theme of the article is summarized by a quote the article provides from a Syngenta spokesperson: “Climate change is impacting agriculture and farmers abilities. … It’s coming down to, especially in the United States, is the unpredictable weather patterns that are beginning to emerge.”

The article especially emphasizes drought as ruining American crop yields. “It’s drier than it used to be,” says a struggling farmer in the article.

Those are bold assertions about climate change, drought, and negative crop impacts. Let’s take a look at the objective data.

Global crop yields during the period of modest global average warming have boomed. As my colleague James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute, recently noted in a Climate Realism article, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports global cereal production (the vitally important corn, wheat, and rice crops) set an all-time record in 2019. Moreover, FAO expects 2020 crop production to surpass the 2019 record. See Figure 1, below.

The same game-changing growth in global production is occurring in the United States. Yields per acre in the United States are 50 percent higher than was the case just 20 years ago, and double what they were in 1980. New records are set virtually every year. See Figure 2, below.

The good news about crop yields tell us that the Denver Channel’s claim about worsening drought is likely false. Here are some additional facts to support that:

As reported in, Climate at a Glance: Drought, the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions. Peaks in drought intensity occurred around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900 – between 40 and 120 years of global warming ago. By contrast, in 2017 the United States set a record for its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history. Then, the United States broke that record again in 2019.

To be fair, many farmers around the world likely do fear the effects of climate change on their livelihoods. If they do, however, their fear is driven by media alarmism like the Denver Channel article rather than by nonexistent declines in real-world crop production.

The post Record Crop Yields Punk The Denver Channel’s Climate Alarmism appeared first on Climate Realism.

COVID WILL KILL CLIMATE DENIALISM

COVID WILL KILL CLIMATE DENIALISM

Covid-19 patient stem cell op saves girl
MUST READ! More Cases Being Reported In China Of Recovered Covid ...
Reimbursement for medical bills for Covid-19 in Thailand | The Thaiger

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON AN ARTICLE RELATING THE COVID PANDEMIC TO CLIMATE CHANGE [LINK]

WILL COVID-19 HELP THE PHYSICS TO MUG CLIMATE DENIALISM?

  1. The COVID virus has been a case of biology confronting and really shaking the complacency of day-to-day politics with a physical reality of sickness and death on a scale we haven’t seen for a very long time.  And so the question really is: why do so many people in government and so many people in politics, particularly in the Anglo sphere, not take the scientific evidence on climate change just as seriously? When is physics going to mug political complacency and denialism?
  2. Turnbull was speaking alongside Mark Carney, the UN special envoy for climate action and finance. He revived his attacks on the right wing of the Liberal Party, vested interests and the Murdoch-owned media in Australia for what he said was their destruction of his attempts to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions and of his premiership.
  3. Mark Carney praised Turnbull’s book and said the former Liberal leader had true political courage. He also said the restructuring of economies after the pandemic meant there was an opportunity for investment in greener energy. „We have a situation with climate change which will involve every country in the world and from which we can’t self-isolate,“
  4. Both men were asked about their views on carbon border taxes, where a country that is reducing its emissions faster than a country it is trading with applies tariffs to address the imbalance. Turnbull said they were „inevitable“ with Australia a target. The Europeans have made it very clear to Australia, publicly, that we should expect in the free trade agreement that the government has been negotiating for some time with the EU that there will be climate change elements in it. „It’s an old saw but a tonne of CO2 has the same impact on the world’s climate, regardless of where its emitted, so we all have an interest in everyone else’s emissions. So I think it is inevitable and I do support them as a matter of principle.“
  5. Two sources who have taken part in Australia’s ongoing negotiations with the EU told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that no terms have been presented to Australia and that they would be rejected anyway. Carney said such taxes should be avoided but that he is not absolutely against them; he wouldn’t put them in place now and it would be an unfortunate set of circumstances if we end up with big enough differences in ambition that they become necessary. „I don’t think we’re in that position.“

RESPONSE

  1. It is true that „a tonne of CO2 has the same impact on the world’s climate, regardless of where its emitted“. This is why only global emissions are relevant in climate sensitivity mathematics and why only a binding global emission reduction agreement is relevant in the climate change context.
  2. The success of the UN in the Montreal Protocol for the ozone established its credentials as a global environmental agency. This dramatic and remarkable apparent success had made it axiomatic that it will therefore give us a corresponding Kyoto Protocol for the climate in terms of a global agreement to cut fossil fuel emissions.
  3. However, as explained in a related post on the Montreal Protocol [LINK] , the  evidence does not show that the ozone depletion problem that the Montreal Protocol is credited with solving actually existed. In other worlds, the UN and its Montreal Protocol are credited with solving a non-existent problem. The data show that large short term changes in ozone concentration at the South Pole, like the one used to identify the ozone depletion problem as an ozone hole, recur and are the norm and that no evidence is found for a long term decline in global mean total column ozone [LINK] .
  4. The failure of the UN to repeat its Montreal Protocol „success“ can be interpreted in that light. The other factor is the enormous difference between changing refrigerants and overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure. What we find in the climate era is that although the UN is keen to use global environmentalism issues such as climate change to extend its size, budget, and reach [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] , it does not have the knowledge, skill, and legal authority to put together a binding global agreement for emission reduction.
  5. The UN seized on the climate crisis proposal put forth in the James Hansen Congressional Testimony of 1988 [LINK] as part of its ambition to establish itself as a global environmental authority based on its imagined Montreal Protocol „success“ and, so superficial was their understanding of the climate change issue, they felt they could just do a repeat of the Montreal Protocol in what came to  be known as the Kyoto Protocol 30 years ago that turned out to be complex and poorly thought out, and a complete failure.
  6. Following Kyoto, 20 more meetings called „conference of parties“ or COP, were held to replicate their Montreal success but to no avail. A global emission reduction target had become further complicated and perhaps impossible when the UN classified developing countries as „Non-Annex“ meaning that they had no emission reduction obligation under a global emission reduction agreement. .
  7. Finally in the 21st COP meeting in Paris, desperate for something they could call an agreement, the UN bureaucrats, who had learned from the prior 20 meetings that if they write a global emission reduction contract for every nation to sign, not every country will sign and the global emission reduction plan will fail as it had dramatically in Copenhagen. To avoid another Copenhagen disaster, the UN bureaucrats came up with the INDC idea for the 21st meeting. It was a desperation plan to not go back empty handed again but to have something in hand that they could call an agreement.
  8. The INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) idea is that since all the participating nations will not sign the same document, the UN would let each of them write the agreement they would sign (the INDC) and then gather up these INDCs into  pile, and call that the Paris Agreement. This was of course not a global agreement for global emission reduction determined according to a target warming amount since pre-industrial – but it was something they could call and agreement so they could declare that they had repeated their Montreal Protocol Success in the Climate issue and close the book on climate change.
  9. Thus, though we have something called the Paris Agreement, it does not have a warming target, there is no binding global emission reduction in the Agreement, and the intended contributions are all very different and non-binding. The UN bureaucrats then decided that they could boost the total „contributions“ from the INDCs by urging the INDC nations to have „ambition“ and to maintain the „momentum“ emission reduction in a cheer leading exercise. This is the sad state of affairs in what was supposed to be a global agreement to cut global emissions according to a globally agreed warming target.
  10. Thus, although it is true that „a tonne of CO2 has the same impact on the world’s climate, regardless of where its emitted“, there is no global agreement for a global emission reduction target to implement a climate action plan according to that principle. All we have is the „Paris Agreement“ of INDCs with the UN now acting as a cheerleader to urge nations have emission reduction ambition. This plan is not working and in terms of economics it is impossible for it to work as explained in a related post on this site [LINK] .
  11. Also here we find that the climate scientists and activists who preach that „a tonne of CO2 has the same impact on the world’s climate, regardless of where its emitted“ are at the same time fully aware that there is not global agreement for a specified global emission reduction. Accordingly, they have joined the UN bureaucrats as emission reduction cheerleaders, not with buzzwords like „ambition“ but with an odd logic that involves a comparison of the Covid-19 pandemic with climate change. This argument is in two parts.
  12. The Covid Argument:Part-1:  In the first part, the Covid argument says that the Covid pandemic was heeded by all nations and by all peoples with a relative absence of Covid deniers. The Covid has taught us the correct way to respond to a global emergency and that logic must be applied to climate such that the climate emergency is treated in the same way. The critical evaluation of this Covid Argument is provided by user Cardimona in a comment at the Catallaxyfiles site [LINK] . The comment says that the Covid shows that people can tell the difference between real crises and faux crises and that they have responded to Covid and not to Climate does not mean that they must also respond to Climate in the same way. It means that they have identified Covid as a real crisis and Climate as a fake crisis.
  13. The Covid Argument: Part-2:  In the second part, the Covid argument holds that the Covid lockdowns have significantly lowered the use of fossil fuels and therefore significantly decreased fossil fuel emissions. This proves that we humans can indeed lower our fossil fuel emissions when we want to and so we should just keep on doing it to fight the climate crisis. The critical evaluation of this Covid argument is found in the content of a related post on this site [LINK]  where we find that the reduction in fossil fuel emissions achieved by Covid had no measurable impact on changes in the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that is the assumed foundational mechanism for the AGW climate change crisis. This event does not serve as motivation to continue emission reduction but rather as evidence of the irrelevance of fossil fuel emissions in the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
  14. Further evidence of the absence of a relationship between emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 are provided in these related posts at this site:  (1) Monte Carlo simulation of the carbon cycle with and without  fossil fuel emissions [LINK]  (2) The absence of correlation between annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and annual emissions is described in three related posts [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] .

CONCLUSIONWE CONCLUDE FROM THE ANALYSIS ABOVE THAT THOUGH THE RESPONSE TO GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE A GLOBAL AGREEMENT TO CUT GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, NO SUCH AGREEMENT EXISTS AND THE UN ITSELF HAS EXPOSED THE ABSENCE OF A GLOBAL AGREEMENT BY CHANGING ITS TACTICS TO THAT OF A CHEERLEADER GOADING NATION STATES TO HAVE NATIONAL AMBITION TO CUT NATIONAL EMISSIONS.

WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE COVID CRISIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEREFORE THE CLIMATE CRISIS MUST BE EQUALLY SERIOUS. AS POINTED OUT BY CARDIMONA [LINK] , WHAT THE COMPARISON PROVES IS THAT PEOPLE CAN TELL REAL CRISES APART FROM FAKE ONES.

WE FURTHER FIND THAT COVID INDUCED EMISSION REDUCTION REVEALS THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSUMED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMISSIONS AND CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE IN THE RATE OF CHANGE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO COVID INDUCED EMISSION REDUCTION. 

IN SHORT, THE CLIMATE SCIENCE ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLIMATE ACTION LACK EMPIRICAL SUPPORT SUCH THAT PEOPLE IN GENERAL CAN TELL A REAL COVID CRISIS APART FROM AN IMAGINED CLIMATE CRISIS. ALSO, FROM A MORAL PERSPECTIVE, IT IS CRUEL OPPORTUNISM TO USE THE COVID TRAGEDY AS A SALES TOOL TO PUSH THE CLIMATE ISSUE.

3 citizens with coronavirus in critical condition - AKIpress News ...

Thongchai Thailand

Der VAE-Reaktor – ein Schlüsselprojekt

Die VAE haben sich bewusst zur ausschließlichen friedlichen Nutzung bekannt. Sie haben deshalb bewusst auf einen eigenen Brennstoffkreislauf vertraglich verzichtet: Keine Anreicherung von Uran und keinerlei Gewinnung von Plutonium, um „Verdachtsmomente“ einer militärischen Nutzung vollständig auszuschließen. Bezug von Brennstoff nur in der Form einsatzbereiter Brennelemente. So radikal hat sich bisher keine Nation positioniert. Extremes Gegenbeispiel ist der Nachbar auf der anderen Seite des Golfs. Im Mullah-Iran wird die Anreicherung von Uran und die Gewinnung von (waffengrädigem) Plutonium leichtgläubigen Europäern als notwendig für den Betrieb des Kernkraftwerks Busher verkauft.

Der Verzicht auf einen eigenen Brennstoffkreislauf hat einerseits enorme diplomatische Verwerfungen ausgelöst und andererseits interessante neuartige Ansätze erschaffen. So haben die USA größte Bauchschmerzen bei der Lieferung von Kernkraftwerken an Saudi-Arabien oder Indien. Indien ist bereits faktisch „Atommacht“. Saudi-Arabien ist nicht grundsätzlich bereit, einen faktischen Verzicht auf Kernwaffen auszusprechen, solange der „Erzfeind Iran“ weiter offen an der „Atombombe“ bastelt. Schon aus diesem Grund ist das – insbesondere von Deutschland – immer noch verzweifelt hoch gelobte „Iranabkommen“ äußerst kontraproduktiv gewesen. Andererseits ist durch die inzwischen verwirklichte Brennstoffbank mehr als ein Ansatz für die Nichtverbreitung von Kernwaffen geschaffen worden.

Um die Brennstoffversorgung zu sichern, wurde die Versorgung durch die VAE in fünf Bereiche vom Uranbergbau bis zum Brennelement gegliedert. Für jede Stufe werden mit mehreren Lieferanten aus unterschiedlichen Ländern Lieferverträge abgeschlossen. Für die Erstbeladung allein mit sechs Unternehmen. Für abgebrannte Brennelemente werden drei Perioden (bis 20 Jahre, bis 200 Jahre und darüber hinaus) definiert. Für die Lagerung bis zu 20 Jahren sind Abklingbecken vorgesehen. Alle sechs Jahre sollen die Elemente in oberirdische Betontresore für mindestens (mögliche) 200 Jahre umgelagert werden. Für den Zeitraum danach kann eine Wiederaufbereitung im Ausland durchgeführt oder eine direkte Endlagerung vorgenommen werden. Eine endgültige Entscheidung wird dann wahrscheinlich nach Kosten gefällt werden.

Die Energiesituation in den VAE

Im Jahr 2007 wurde eine umfangreiche Energiestudie durchgeführt. Man kam zu der Erkenntnis, dass der Verbrauch an elektrischer Energie mit einer Rate von 9 Prozent jährlich wachsen würde. Es blieb daher nur der Weg über den Neubau von Kernkraftwerken oder Kohlekraftwerken. Ab dem Jahr 2007 wurden die VAE bereits zum Netto-Gasimporteur mit stetig steigender Tendenz. Noch heute wird fast 98 Prozent der elektrischen Energie aus Erdgas gewonnen. Der Primärenergieverbrauch wurde 2018 aus etwa 40 Prozent Öl und 59 Prozent Erdgas gedeckt. Im Jahr 2017 wurden 127 TWh elektrische Energie verbraucht. Das Kernkraftwerk Barakah mit 4 Blöcken vom Typ APR1400 kann rund 44 TWh jährlich produzieren. Damit können erhebliche Mengen Erdgas in den nächsten Jahren für die Industrie oder den Export freigesetzt werden.

Ein mutiger Schritt auf beiden Seiten

Nach internationaler Ausschreibung und mehr als einjähriger Prüfung ging der Auftrag 2009 an die Korea Electric Power Company über die schlüsselfertige Lieferung zum Festpreis von 20 Milliarden USD für das Kernkraftwerk Barakah (3600 USD/kW). Es war der erste Exporterfolg Koreas für Reaktoren der sogenannten III. Generation. Insofern ein mutiger Schritt auf beiden Seiten. Vor der Entscheidung wurden zahlreiche internationale Fachleute mit Erfahrungen im Bau von Kernkraftwerken im Auftrag der VAE nach Korea entsandt. Ihr Auftrag war die Beurteilung der Zulieferer und der Baustellen des gleichen Typs. Die VAE selbst verfügen über zahlreiche Erfahrungen in der Abwicklung von Großprojekten ihrer Öl- und Gasindustrie und den Bau und Betrieb zahlreicher Gas-Kombi-Kraftwerke.

Im Jahr 2016 gingen die VAE und Korea eine gegenseitige Beteiligung ein. Man gründete „Barakah One (BO)“ als Finanzierungs- und „Nawah“ als gemeinsame Betriebsgesellschaft. An diesen beiden Gesellschaften hat jeweils die „Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC)“ einen Anteil von 82 Prozent und die „Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO)“ einen Anteil von 18 Prozent. BO verfügt über ein Kapital von 24,4 Milliarden USD. Davon sind 4,7 Milliarden Eigenkapital und rund 19,6 Milliarden Fremdfinanzierung. Das Department of Finance of Abu Dhabi hat 16,2 Milliarden beigesteuert und die Export-Importbank von Korea (KEXIM) 2,5 Milliarden. Weitere Mittel kommen von einem Bankenkonsortium (National Bank of Abu Dhabi, First Gulf Bank, HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank). Das Volumen beinhaltet den Auftragswert (overnight cost), die Zinsen und etwaige Kostensteigerung durch Inflation während der Bauzeit, sowie die erste Brennstoffladung.

Die Baustelle als ein Konjunkturprogramm

Im Juli 2012 begann der Bau mit dem Betonieren der Grundplatte des Reaktors 1. Diese Arbeiten gelten international als der Baubeginn eines Kernkraftwerks. Im Mai 2013 folgte die Grundplatte des Reaktors 2 und im September 2014 Grundplatte 3 beziehungsweise im September 2015 Grundplatte 4. Hier wird schon das Prinzip eines kostengünstigen Bauens erkennbar: Man baut viermal die gleiche Anlage, aber geringfügig zeitversetzt. So hat man jeweils nach dem Bau der Anlage 1 ein bereits geübtes Team für die Anlagen 2 bis 4 vor Ort. Dies bietet die größte Rationalisierung und Sicherheit vor Fehlern, die zu Bauverzögerungen führen. Eine stets wiederkehrende Erfahrung auf allen Baustellen der Welt. Dieser Takt wurde auch bei den Komponenten gehalten:

Zum Beispiel beim Einbau des ersten Reaktordruckgefäßes im Mai 2014, im Reaktor 2 im Juni 2015, im Reaktor 3, Juli 2016, und 2017 im Reaktor 4. Eine solche Auftragsvergabe wirkt sich natürlich auch kostensenkend bei den Zulieferern aus. Eine Kleinserie ist immer günstiger als eine spezielle Einzelanfertigung. Jedes „erste Mal“ birgt immer das Risiko nicht vorhergesehener Probleme, die automatisch zu Verzögerungen führen.

Auf der Baustelle arbeiteten mehr als 18.000 Menschen. So viele Menschen über so lange Zeit mit Unterkunft, Essen, sauberer Arbeitsbekleidung etc. zu versorgen, ist ein enormer Input für die lokale Wirtschaft. Hinzu kommen die Aufträge im Inland. Rund 1.400 Unternehmen aus den VAE erhielten vom Generalunternehmer Aufträge über mehr als 3 Milliarden USD. Viel bedeutender als der Geldwert ist jedoch der Wissenstransfer: Alle Produkte und Dienstleistungen müssen den strengen Qualitätsanforderungen der Kerntechnik genügen. So haben die koreanischen Zulieferer durch tatkräftige Hilfe dazu beigetragen, dass zahlreiche Unternehmen sich erstmalig für eine Zulassung bei der American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) zertifizieren konnten.

So besitzen zum Beispiel Emirates Steel durch ihre Lieferung für Betonstahl nun eine ASME-Zulassung für Kernkraftwerke. Solche Zertifikate müssen beileibe keine Eintagsfliegen sein. So konnte der Kabellieferant Ducab inzwischen sogar Kabel für das Kernkraftwerk Shin Hanul in Korea liefern. Es ist kein Zufall, dass hier keine Rede mehr von DIN und sonstigen deutschen Regelwerken ist. Keine Exporte von Kernkraftwerken, keine Verbreitung von deutscher Spitzentechnik. Wer seinen Betrieb einmal aufwendig auf die US-Maßsysteme und ihre Technik-Philosophie eingestellt hat, wird nur sehr unwillig alles ändern. Dies gilt auch für andere Produkte.

Die Folgeaufträge

Ein solches Projekt ergibt eine gegenseitige Verknüpfung der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen für Jahrzehnte. Für den Lieferanten ergeben sich unzählige lukrative Folgeaufträge. So hat die Korea Hydro und Nuclear Power (KHNP) mit der Betriebsgesellschaft Nawah ein „Operating Support Service Agreement (QSSA)“ abgeschlossen. Für 10 Jahre nach Fertigstellung sollen 400 Fachkräfte von KHNP den Betrieb vor Ort unterstützen. Der Auftragswert: 880 Millionen USD. Hinzu kam 2017 ein weiteres Abkommen zwischen KHNP und Nawah über den gemeinsamen Einkauf von Ersatzteilen für die koreanischen und VAE Kraftwerke vom Typ APR1400. Im März 2019 hat Nawah einen fünfjährigen Wartungsvertrag mit Kepco und Doosan Heavy Industries abgeschlossen.

Man muss nicht nur unzählige „Elektro-Golfs“ verkaufen, bis man einen Umsatz von 20 Milliarden erzielt hat, sondern bei einem Kernkraftwerk fallen einem auch noch weitere Milliardenaufträge quasi ins Haus. Nicht zu unterschätzen, welche ganz anderen Aufträge man durch solch enge Kontakte einwerben kann. So haben sich die Koreaner schon vorher durch den Bau von Gaskraftwerken und Meerwasserentsalzungsanlagen einen Namen in den VAE gemacht. So wie einst Siemens – jedenfalls sind nicht immer höhere Lohnkosten in Deutschland eine Ausrede für alles. Politischer Wille spielt auch eine nicht ganz unwichtige Rolle. Wenn man jedenfalls sein Heil in der Neuerfindung mittelalterlicher Techniken sucht, sollte man sich über keinen Stellenabbau wundern.

Der steinige Weg

Es ist eine nicht zu unterschätzende Leistung, ein bitterarmes Volk aus einer nahezu unbewohnbaren Salzwüste in das 21. Jahrhundert zu katapultieren. Inzwischen setzt sich in allen Ölförderländern die Erkenntnis durch, dass nur durch eine konsequente Industrialisierung dauerhaft gut bezahlte und anspruchsvolle Arbeitsplätze geschaffen werden können. Davor steht wiederum Bildung und Ausbildung. So ist die Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) buchstäblich aus dem Nichts 2008 entstanden. Heute hat die ENEC über 2.900 Mitarbeiter. Der Anteil der Emiratis ist inzwischen auf 60 Prozent angestiegen und der Anteil der Frauen beträgt 20 Prozent, was vielleicht viele „Gender-Gaga-Anhänger“ erstaunen mag. Hier wächst eine Generation hoch qualifizierter Frauen heran, von denen bereits einige Führungspositionen – nicht durch Quote, sondern durch Fleiß (Kerntechnik-Studium) und Befähigung – erklommen haben.

Der Weg ist durchaus eine Orientierung für andere Schwellen- oder gar Entwicklungsländer, die Kernenergie nutzen wollen. Auch Wissen kann importiert werden. Man hat Fachleute aus aller Welt mit mindestens 25-jähriger einschlägiger Berufserfahrung angeworben. Der eigene Nachwuchs lernt durch die unmittelbare Zusammenarbeit an dem konkreten Projekt. Für die Grundausbildung sind vier Züge vorgesehen:

  1. Weiterbildung von erfahrenem Personal aus anderen Industriezweigen des Landes.
  2. Studium von besonders qualifizierten Studenten der eigenen Hochschulen zur Erlangung eines „Nuclear Masters“ an renommierten Universitäten im Ausland.
  3. Aufbau eines „Bachelors der Kerntechnik“ an den Hochschulen des Landes.
  4. Techniker für Wartung und Betrieb im eigenen Kraftwerk.

KHNP und ENEC haben 2016 einen Vertrag über die Entsendung von 50 Fachkräften für die Ausbildung in Korea abgeschlossen. Daraus sind unter anderem 10 voll ausgebildete und zertifizierte Reaktorfahrer hervorgegangen. Seit 2010 läuft das „Energy Pioneers Program“ mit den USA. Bisher wurden 500 Emiratis ausgebildet. Weiter werden 200 Emiratis durch die USA zu Reaktorfahrern ausgebildet. Im Juli 2019 wurden die ersten 15 Reaktorfahrer nach dreijähriger praktischer Ausbildung in Korea, Südafrika und den USA von der ENEC zugelassen. Für den Betrieb des Kraftwerks geht ENEC von etwa 2.000 Dauerarbeitsplätzen aus.

Zwangsläufige Verzögerungen

Die Kernenergie in den VAE wurde praktisch auf einem weißen Blatt begonnen. Von Anfang an hat man die Kooperation mit dem Ausland angestrebt, um aus Erfahrungen und Fehlern zu lernen. Auf Transparenz gegenüber allen internationalen Institutionen wurde stets großer Wert gelegt. Die Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) der VAE ging nie allein vor.

Bereits im Mai 2017 wurden vertragsgemäß die Brennelemente für den ersten Reaktor geliefert und im Kraftwerk bis zur Erlangung einer Betriebsgenehmigung eingelagert. Im Oktober 2017 hat ein „Pre-Operational Safety Review Team (Pre-OSART)“ der „World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO)“ die Anlage auf ihre Betriebssicherheit überprüft. 15 internationale Fachleute aus sieben Ländern haben 18 Tage vor Ort das Kraftwerk begutachtet. Hierbei geht es vor allen Dingen um die Einhaltung der Sicherheitsstandards der „International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)“. Der Bericht schloss mit einem Lob für die Bildung der „Multi-Kulti“-Betriebsmannschaft, aber auch mit einiger Kritik ab. Es wurde für die Behebung der Mängel ein Zeitraum von 18 Monaten vorgegeben.

Im März 2018 wurde der erste Reaktor offiziell fertiggestellt und dem Kunden übergeben. Damit sind alle Tests und Prüfungen unter Fremdenergie abgeschlossen und die Betriebsfähigkeit nachgewiesen. Der Reaktor durfte aber erst mit Kernbrennstoff beladen werden, nachdem die Betriebsgesellschaft Nawah eine Betriebserlaubnis erhalten hatte.

Im November 2019 führte die WANO eine „Pre-Start Up Review“ durch und erklärte den Reaktor 1 für betriebsbereit. Am 17.2.2020 erteilte die FANR als zuständige Institution der Nawah eine Betriebsgenehmigung für 60 Jahre. Dies geschah, nachdem über 14.000 eingereichte Seiten technische Dokumentation geprüft, 255 Inspektionen durchgeführt, 2.000 ergänzende Anfragen bearbeitet und 40 internationale Inspektionen durch WANO und IAEA durchgeführt worden waren. Damit konnte Reaktor 1 mit Kernbrennstoff beladen werden. Die Erstbeladung konnte bereits durch ein Team aus 90 Prozent Emitatis eigenverantwortlich durchgeführt werden. Trotz Corona konnte nun endlich zum 1. August der erste Block seine Kettenreaktion einleiten. Es beginnen jetzt die üblichen Garantietests in verschiedenen Leistungsstufen. Man strebt eine vollständige Übergabe bis Ende des Jahres an. Gleichwohl wird schon in dieser Inbetriebnahmephase elektrische Energie in das Verteilnetz der VAE eingespeist.

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst bei Nuke-Klaus.

— EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

The Real HCQ Story: What We Now Know

The Real HCQ Story: What We Now Know

Steven Hatfill explains what happened to HCQ treatments against coronavirus in his Real Politics article An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

After examples of the media disinformation campaign, Steven provides a brief recounting of what has transpired over the last half year pandemic.

So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast — and in error — the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.

In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.

In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.

Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May 27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.

The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.

Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.

Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.

Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results — and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?

Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight — Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.

.

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/31moFEz

August 5, 2020 at 11:09AM

The Dirty Secrets of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles

UK ELECTRIC CARS
How clean really? 
© 2017 BLOOMBERG FINANCE LP

The widespread view that fossil fuels are “dirty” and renewables such as wind and solar energy and electric vehicles are “clean” has become a fixture of mainstream media and policy assumptions across the political spectrum in developed countries, perhaps with the exception of the Trump-led US administration. Indeed the ultimate question we are led to believe is how quickly can enlightened Western governments, led by an alleged scientific consensus, “decarbonize” with clean energy in a race to save the world from impending climate catastrophe. The ‘net zero by 2050’ mantra, calling for carbon emissions to be completely mitigated within three decades, is now the clarion call by governments and intergovernmental agencies around the developed world, ranging from several EU member states and the UK, to the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund.

Mining out of sight, out of mind

Let’s start with Elon Musk’s Tesla. In an astonishing achievement for a company that has now posted four consecutive quarters of profits, Tesla is now the world’s most valuable automotive company. Demand for EVs is set to soar, as government policies subsidize the purchase of EVs to replace the internal combustion engine of gasoline and diesel-driven cars and as owning a “clean” and “green” car becomes a moral testament to many a virtue-signaling customer.

Yet, if one looks under the hood of “clean energy” battery-driven EVs, the dirt found would surprise most. The most important component in the EV is the lithium-ion rechargeable battery which relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese. Tracing the source of these minerals, in what is called “full-cycle economics”, it becomes apparent that EVs create a trail of dirt from the mining and processing of minerals upstream.

A recent United Nations report warns that the raw materials used in electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries where environmental and labour regulations are weak or non-existent. Thus, battery production for EVs is driving a boom in small-scale or “artisanal” cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of Congo which supplies two thirds of global output of the mineral. These artisanal mines, which account for up to a quarter of the country’s production, have been found to be dangerous and employ child labour.

Mindful of what the image of children scrabbling for hand-dug minerals in Africa can do to high tech’s clean and green image, most tech and auto companies using cobalt and other toxic heavy metals avoid direct sourcing from mines. Tesla Inc. TSLA -0.4% struck a deal last month with Swiss-based Glencore Plc to buy as much as 6,000 tons of cobalt annually from the latter’s Congolese mines. While Tesla has said it aims to remove reputational risks associated with sourcing minerals from countries such as the DRC where corruption is rampant, Glencore  assures buyers that no hand-dug cobalt is treated at its mechanized mines.

There are 7.2 million battery EVs or about 1% of the total vehicle fleet today. To get an idea of the scale of mining for raw materials involved in replacing the world’s gasoline and diesel-fueled cars with EVs, we can take the example of the UK as provided by Michael Kelly, the Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. According to Professor Kelly, if we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs,  assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: about twice the annual global production of cobalt; three quarters of the world’s production lithium carbonate; nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and more than half the world’s production of copper in 2018.

And this is just for the UK. Professor Kelly estimates that if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves. The environmental and social impact of vastly-expanded mining for these materials — some of which are highly toxic when mined, transported and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined. The clean and green image of EVs stands in stark contrast to the realities of manufacturing batteries.

Zero Emissions and All That

Proponents of EVs might counter by saying that despite these evident environmental and social problems associated with mining in many third world countries, the case remains that EVs help reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with the internal combustion engines run on gasoline and diesel fuels. According to the reigning climate change narrative, it is after all carbon dioxide emissions that are threatening environmental catastrophe on a global scale. For the sake of saving the world, the climate crusaders of the richer nations might be willing to ignore the local pollution and human rights violations involved in mining for minerals and rare earths in Africa, China, Latin America and elsewhere.

While one might question the inherent inequity in imposing such a trade-off, the supposed advantages of EVs in emitting lower carbon emissions are overstated according to a peer-reviewed life-cycle study comparing conventional and electric vehicles. To begin with, about half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially in the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery. This compares unfavorably with the manufacture of a gasoline-powered car which accounts for 17% of the car’s lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When a new EV appears in the show-room, it has already caused 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The equivalent amount for manufacturing a conventional car is 14,000 pounds.

Once on the road, the carbon dioxide emissions of EVs depends on the power-generation fuel used to recharge its battery. If it comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will lead to about 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every mile it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gasoline-powered car. Even without reference to the source of electricity used for battery charging, if an EV is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the EV will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Even if the EV is driven for 90,000 miles and the battery is charged by cleaner natural-gas fueled power stations, it will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than a gasoline-powered car. As the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg puts it, “This is a far cry from ‘zero emissions’”.

As most ordinary people mindful of keeping within modest budgets choose affordable gasoline or diesel-powered cars, experts and policy advisors the world over have felt compelled to tilt the playing field in favor of EVs. EV subsidies are regressive: given their high upfront cost, EVs are only  affordable for high-income households. It is egregious that EV subsides are funded by the average tax-payer so that the rich can buy their EVs at subsidized prices. 

The determination not to know or to look away when the facts assail our beliefs is an enduring frailty of human nature. The tendency towards group think and confirmation bias, and the will to affirm the “scientific consensus” and marginalize sceptics, are rife in considerations by the so-called experts committed to advocating their favorite cause. In the case of EVs, the dirty secrets of “clean energy” should seem apparent to all but, alas, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Tilak Doshi

Forbes.com

August 5, 2020