via Real Climate Science
October 13, 2020 at 05:49PM
From Forbes in 2010.
“Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic The agency needed to bounce back after the avian flu embarrassment.”
“The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.”
COVID-19 just reached mild epidemic level.
This is deceptive however. The average age of death from COVID-19 is about the same as the average age of death from all other causes, and the vast majority of deaths had multiple comorbidities. So many of the COVID-19 deaths were people who would have died even without COVID-19.
via Real Climate Science
October 13, 2020 at 05:49PM
Guest “why?” by David Middleton
Why? Because California…
OCTOBER 9, 2020
Solar photovoltaic generators receive higher electricity prices than other technologies
In 2019, the average U.S. wholesale price for electricity generated by solar photovoltaic (PV) technology was significantly higher than average wholesale prices for electricity from other technologies. The weighted average wholesale price for solar PV-generated electricity was $83 per megawatthour (MWh) in 2019, more than double the price paid to producers for electricity generated by wind, fossil fuels, or nuclear. The higher average wholesale price for solar PV relative to other technologies is partly driven by geography and timing.
Wholesale electricity prices are the prices that electricity retailers, such as utilities, pay electricity producers, such as power plant owners and operators. In wholesale markets, the price of electricity changes based on changes in electricity demand, the price of fuels that power plants use to generate electricity, and the availability of the generation fuel sources. These prices are calculated as the revenue that generators receive in wholesale power markets divided by their technologies’ electricity generation and do not reflect the cost of building the power plants or the cost of generating electricity.
About one-third of all U.S. solar PV capacity is located in California, where the average wholesale electricity price across all technologies was $74/MWh in 2019, more than double the national average of $36/MWh. The weighted average wholesale solar PV price in California was $100/MWh, or more than 20% higher than the national average for solar PV. Because California had the most PV capacity in the country, the state’s higher wholesale electricity prices contributed to solar PV’s higher national average price.
Wind farms in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas collectively produced 45% of total U.S. wind generation in 2019. The average wholesale wind price in these states was $26/MWh compared with $47/MWh for wind generation in all other states. Wholesale wind prices in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas tend to be lower because their favorable wind resources lower wind generation costs.
Wholesale electricity prices are generally higher when electricity demand within an area is greater. Because consumer demand for electricity varies throughout the day, the time of day when generation occurs also influences wholesale prices. Solar PV only generates electricity in the daytime, when electricity demand and wholesale power prices tend to be higher, but wind turbines generate electricity whenever the wind blows and tend to reach their greatest output overnight. In 2019, more than half of wind generation occurred at night, resulting in lower average wholesale prices for wind-powered electricity than solar-powered electricity.
Principal contributor: Eric Harrison
Funny thing… The wholesale price paid for solar PV generated electricity in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas is lower than the average wholesale price from all sources in California…
But, it’s still higher than the other sources in those states… Why?
Because solar power doesn’t work late at night, when demand is lowest. It works best in mid-afternoon, when demand and prices are high… Then it crashes just before demand peaks, creating the “duck curve”.
Confronting the Duck Curve: How to Address Over-Generation of Solar Energy
OCTOBER 12, 2017
In 2013, the California Independent System Operator published a chart that is now commonplace in conversations about large-scale deployment of solar photovoltaic (PV) power. The duck curve—named after its resemblance to a duck—shows the difference in electricity demand and the amount of available solar energy throughout the day. When the sun is shining, solar floods the market and then drops off as electricity demand peaks in the evening. The duck curve is a snapshot of a 24-hour period in California during springtime—when this effect is most extreme because it’s sunny but temperatures remain cool, so demand for electricity is low since people aren’t using electricity for air conditioning or heating.
The duck curve represents a transition point for solar energy. It was, perhaps, the first major acknowledgement by a system operator that solar energy is no longer a niche technology and that utilities need to plan for increasing amounts of solar energy. This is especially true for places that already have high solar adoption, such as California, where one day this past March, solar contributed nearly 40% of electricity generation in the state for the first time ever.
High solar adoption creates a challenge for utilities to balance supply and demand on the grid. This is due to the increased need for electricity generators to quickly ramp up energy production when the sun sets and the contribution from PV falls. Another challenge with high solar adoption is the potential for PV to produce more energy than can be used at one time, called over-generation. This leads system operators to curtail PV generation, reducing its economic and environmental benefits. While curtailment does not have a major impact on the benefits of PV when it occurs occasionally throughout the year, it could have a potentially significant impact at greater PV penetration levels.
While the mainstream awareness of these challenges is relatively recent, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) has been at the forefront of examining strategies for years. Most of the projects funded under SETO’s systems integration subprogram are performing work to help grid operators manage the challenges of the duck curve.
The more solar PV capacity added to the grid, the deeper the “duck curve”…
From about 9:00 AM to about 5:00 PM, solar power displaces other generation sources. As the Sun goes down, other sources have to ramp up in order to meet peak demand. The more solar in the grid, the steeper the ramp.
This actually creates a situation where solar PV could wreak even more havoc on our electrical grid, with or without government subsidies.
Based on the average wholesale prices received and the capacity-weighted levelized cost of electricity can expect to generate a profit of over $54/MWh, including nearly $9/MWh in tax credits.
While the averages aren’t truly representative because the actual costs and revenues vary widely geographically and by the manner in which the technologies are applied, the market is clearly encouraging the over-build out of solar PV power plants. Fortunately, most utility companies realize that, despite the falling construction costs, the Sun doesn’t always shine…
Compared with other generation technologies, natural gas technologies received the highest U.S. investment in 2018, accounting for 46% of total capacity additions for all energy sources. Growth in natural gas electric-generating capacity was led by significant additions in new capacity from combined-cycle facilities, which almost doubled the previous year’s additions for that technology. Combined-cycle technology construction costs dropped by 4% in 2018 to $858 per kW.
via Watts Up With That?
October 13, 2020 at 05:03PM
raig Richardson writes at Real Clear Energy The Supreme Court Is Taking Critical Step Towards Resolving Frivolous Climate Suits. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Sometimes the most important Supreme Court decisions are overlooked because of their technical nature. That is the case with the Supreme Court’s choice to hear jurisdictional claims in B.P. P.L.C., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
The Court’s ruling will either allow cities to pursue superfluous nuisance claims against energy companies in state courts or limit the suits to federal courts that are less prone to accept broad liability claims.
These jurisdictional claims are significant because they set the appropriate scope of appellate review for these suits. Lawsuits predicated on federal laws and involving federal officers’ actions should be decided at the federal level. By agreeing to hear arguments in the Baltimore case, the Supreme Court is taking a crucial step towards setting a consistent legal playing field.
The Supreme Court will not rule on the merits of Baltimore’s claims. Instead, they will decide whether the defendants can appeal a jurisdictional claim after a federal court rejects it.
Under existing law, it is clear the defendant can appeal aspects of the decision, but not whether the whole claim is fair game. A ruling in favor of the defendants would force multiple Circuit Courts to reevaluate their previous rulings and rehear jurisdictional claims by the energy companies.
Even though the justices won’t decide on the merits, the key is the context of Baltimore’s lawsuit. For years, city and state officials have been – in partnership with trial lawyers and leftist environmental groups – twisting the meaning of public nuisance laws to sue energy companies for their alleged contributions to climate change, even though these companies aren’t breaking the law. In recent months, localities have filed even more suits, making it especially important that lower courts know whether these cases should be resolved at the federal or state level.
These suits aren’t about helping the environment but are filed by leftist politicians and their backers hoping to score political points as they desperately attempt to fill their city or state coffers.
A senior Rhode Island official said the state’s climate lawsuit was designed to create a “sustainable funding stream” for Rhode Island. The state is desperate for funding because decades of big-spending policies have left Rhode Island officials with a budget deficit approaching $160 million.
In another instance, San Mateo County filed a lawsuit claiming there was a 93% risk of deadly floods by 2050 while telling municipal investors they had nothing to worry about. The S.E.C. is now investigating the county for fraud, and it is clear its lawsuit is motivated by politics, not science.
Instead of addressing climate change or working to build a sustainable future, leftist officials are trying to profit off energy companies, which would drive up the cost for all Americans. Given the clear political undertones of these cases, and the potential devastating impact on the U.S. economy, they must receive a fair hearing in a neutral venue.
It shouldn’t be surprising that state and city officials are fighting to have the cases heard in the state courts, the most favorable jurisdictions possible for them. Local officials are confident they can find a state judge who will issue a broad ruling against the energy companies, which would be difficult to overturn on appeal, regardless of the merits.
This outcome would be a disaster for energy companies and their customers, who would have to worry about individual state judges’ whims. These judges could create a mishmash of legal rulings that ends up being totally incoherent. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the defendants prevail in most of these frivolous lawsuits but lose a few in unfriendly jurisdictions and all of us will pay the price monetarily.
Additionally, state courts shouldn’t be addressing national political issues, especially on climate change, an issue that in the past the Supreme Court ruled should be handled by Congress and the president, not state courts. If laws need to be changed, Congress should change them, instead of having individual judges legislate from the bench. Some courts have already dismissed similar climate suits for this very reason.
Allowing state courts to decide debates of global importance is a recipe for disaster.
Generally, federal courts “are far less likely, as a whole and with some exceptions, to be willing to entertain expansive theories of liability than state courts,” according to George Mason University law professor Donald Kochan. This means federal courts are unlikely to perform legal gymnastics to try and hold energy companies accountable when it is clear they are operating within the law and have permits from the government.
via Science Matters
October 13, 2020 at 03:54PM
This OFCOM survey about Covid-19 News and Misinformation (tweeted by Michael Yeadon and flagged by BishopHill, to whom many thanks) is the worst opinion survey I’ve seen since you-know-when.
A few quick comments:
Figure 1: Consumption of misinformation
Q8 Have you come across any information/ news about Coronavirus that you think has been false or misleading in the past week?
Comment: That’s not misinformation, it’s what the respondent thinksis misinformation. It might be true or false, from the government or from a loony site. It doesn’t measure consumptionof misinformation, but level of belief in what theyread. In week 1, 46% read stuff they didn’t believe, which fell to 27% in week 25
Figure 2: Selected types of coronavirus misinformation encountered in previous week
Q10 Have you come across any of these false or misleading recommendations about aspects of the coronavirus in the LAST WEEK?
Face masks/coverings offer no protection
No. of deaths is much lower in reality
Potential dangers of a Coronavirus vaccine
No. of cases is much lower in reality
Theories linking Coronavirus to 5G technology
Schoolchildren can be tested without parents’ permission
Comment: Telling respondents that the information is false is grotesque survey practice. And false in the case of the third and fourth propositions. Of course there are potential dangers in vaccines. Asymptomatic cases are not “cases.”
Figure 4: Whether untrue stories about the coronavirus should be shared/ posted on social media
Comment: Before they get told that the above statements are false, they’ve been asked (Q4b3) whether they agree of disagree that untrue stories or items about Coronavirus should not be posted or shared on social media. 82% agree that they should not. Note at this stage they don’t know what OFCOM considers untrue.
Figure 5: Levels of concern about misinformation about the coronavirus
Q10k To what extent are you concerned or not concerned about the following statements?
The amount of false or misleading information you may be getting about Coronavirus
The amount of false or misleading information that others in society may be getting about Coronavirus
Comment: Answers on a five point scale from “very concerned” to “not at all concerned” tell us nothing, as you’d expect for such a convoluted question, asked apparently as the eleventh in a battery after OFCOM had revealed what they consider “false or misleading.” No information about the preceding ten questions.
The question numbers reveal that there are huge holes in the report – questions whose answers are not discussed. Presumably the raw data is available here. I haven’t dared look.
via Climate Scepticism
October 13, 2020 at 02:29PM
The NY Times tells the story of some Covid survivors who are forgetting entire holidays that were taken weeks before they got ill. They stare at photos and recall nothing… One 31 year old woman suffers from “white static” moments where she is so disoriented she washed the TV Remote, couldn’t remember who she was, or where she was.
This happens in other viral diseases too, as sufferers with chronic fatigue, ME, and ongoing inflammation will tell you. But the scale of it appears to be something unique. Months later some of these people are have given up their jobs.
Pam Belluck, New York Times
After contracting the coronavirus in March, Michael Reagan lost all memory of his 12-day vacation in Paris, even though the trip was just a few weeks earlier.
Several weeks after Erica Taylor recovered from her Covid-19 symptoms of nausea and cough, she became confused and forgetful, failing to even recognize her own car, the only Toyota Prius in her apartment complex’s parking lot.
Lisa Mizelle, a veteran nurse practitioner at an urgent care clinic who fell ill with the virus in July, finds herself forgetting routine treatments and lab tests, and has to ask colleagues about terminology she used to know automatically.
Dr. Murphey, scientific director for a brain-wave technology company, who couldn’t summon the word “work” in a recent meeting, said research is crucial so symptoms are taken seriously.
This summer, Mr. Reagan , the vascular medicine specialist, turned the stove on to cook eggs and then absent-mindedly left to walk the dog, Wolff-Parkinson-White, named after a cardiac arrhythmia. Returning to discover a dangerously hot empty pan, he panicked and hasn’t cooked since.
…finger tremors and seizures, neurological symptoms that sometimes accompany brain fog, meant “there is no way I’m going to go into surgery and teach a doctor how to suture an artery,” he said.
Read the whole thing…
So far, MRI scans haven’t indicated damaged brain areas, neurologists say.
So that’s something.
There have been 8 million known cases of Covid in the US and a lot of unknown ones, so we’d expect some stories like this. We hope this is a small percentage, but other studies albeit small, suggest as many as a third of hospitalized patients have memory loss nearly 4 months later. Many of those will be mild memory dropouts, but the rate of hospitalization for influenza is about 1.6%. It is much higher in Covid, more in the order of 10%.
Confusion, delirium and other types of altered mental function, called encephalopathy, have occurred during hospitalization for Covid-19 respiratory problems, and a study found such patients needed longer hospitalizations, had higher mortality rates and often couldn’t manage daily activities right after hospitalization.
But research on long-lasting brain fog is just beginning. A French report in August on 120 patients who had been hospitalized found that 34 percent had memory loss and 27 percent had concentration problems months later.
The French Study by Garrigues et al asked 120 former hospital patients about their recovery 110 days later. They find that most survivors have still have ongoing symptoms over 3 months later:
We included 120 patients after a mean (±SD) of 110.9 (±11.1) days following admission. The most frequently reported persistent symptoms were fatigue (55%), dyspnoea (42%), loss of memory (34%), concentration and sleep disorders (28% and 30.8%, respectively). Comparisons between ward- and ICU patients led to no statistically significant differences regarding those symptoms. In both group, EQ-5D (mobility, self-care, pain, anxiety or depression, usual activity) was altered with a slight difference in pain in the ICU group.
About half were active workers before hand, and 70% had returned to work. Though that means 30% still had not. One quarter still had diarrhea, one in five suffered hair loss. Just under half reported ongoing shortness of breath. This is nearly four months later. It is not the flu.
I had CoVID in March will full-blown encephalopathy. I was in bed at home for weeks, wondering how low my oxygen level had to be to make my lips that blue, believing that I was dying of heart disease, and unable to move in bed. I should add that I am a Harvard-trained physician with a full-time Harvard appointment and thirty years of work experience at two Longwood hospitals. I remember nothing until July and very little since then. My primary care tells me that I ‘dodged a bullet.’ I cannot describe the frustration and depression that comes with losing one’s intellect. I cannot imagine that cognitive therapy will help me, but I will give it a go if I can find a program. In a way, I am fortunate. I am resourced, have insurance, a good husband, and a home. Many, many people lack these resources. My best to those suffering from CoVID and more to those suffering the death of a loved one. Our lives could have been different with proper strategies and better management early on in the contagion.
Obviously people making policy decisions about the costs of lockdowns, or the value of stopping the virus need good data on these long haulers.
As we mentioned last week, sometimes in war it’s better to main and impair rather than kill outright. It’s almost as if SARS-2 has the right mix to divide the democracies of The West. Not too deadly, not too nice. It’s scary enough to have to do something, but not scary enough to get unity. If it was infectious ebola, it’d be gone.
Meanwhile, whatever the CCP know about this virus, they appear to be as determined as ever not to let the virus roam. They are testing nine million people to contain the first outbreak in two months.
Otherwise the Chinese economy is recovering very well.
Three quarters of mild to moderate Covid illnesses show heart damage. (Puntmann et al) Two out of three in that study were not even hospitalized and this study was done two months after they recovered. In May, the first reports of long term struggles came from Italy. In June, UK doctors loosely estimated that one in three may suffer long term damage. Last week UK doctors who were still sick six months after getting Covid-19, wrote to warn that their conditions were debilitating (Wise et al), with mystery fatigue, new allergies and cognitive problems. “Results from China, Japan, and USA show that half or more of asymptomatic cases have lung damage. The sobering UK health toll (so far) is 440,000 known cases, 42,000 deaths and 60,000 “Long Covid” (which means being affected for at least three months). CT scans of asymptomatic cases turned up a surprising 70% with signs of lung damage. (Though they are small non randomized studies Long, and Ran et al.).
The genetics says “Bioweapon”
My simple rule for new likely bioweapon releases is (and always was), to leave them un China. Why give any authoritarians the excuse to lock us down, or set up new cameras…
Puntmann VO, Carerj ML, Wieters I, et al. (2020) Outcomes of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients recently recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. Published online July 27, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557
Ran and Topal, (2020) Annals of Internal Medicine.
Jackie Wise (2020) Long covid: doctors call for research and surveillance to capture disease, BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3586 (Published 15 September 2020) BMJ 2020;370:m3586Rating: 9.8/10 (18 votes cast)Covid Brain Fog: the survivors who forget whole holidays, can’t recognise their own car, 9.8 out of 10 based on 18 ratings
October 13, 2020 at 01:35PM
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Since everyone is preoccupied with Corona, hardly anyone notices what is being decided to continue destroying Germany:
The German government now wants to make the use of renewable energies a question of national security. “The use of renewable energies for electricity generation is in the public interest and serves public security,” says the draft of the new German Renewable Energy Sources Act, on which the newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” reported.
From the point of view of experts, the decision is of enormous significance.
It concerns a energy-political turning point, say legal experts of energy law at the law firm of Luther, Gernot, Engel, reports Die Welt am Sonntag.
In the controversy over the building of wind parks, for example, the reference to “public security” may fundamentally impact court rulings. In court proceedings in connection with the expansion of bioenergy, wind and solar power, the reference to “public safety” could restrict the impact rulings by judges, business representatives fear, according to the “Welt am Sonntag”.
The new norm threatens to become a basis for far-reaching state intervention.
The federal government confirmed to Die Welt am Sonntag that the new state consecrations for eco-energy should make it easier to enforce building applications. “The regulation stipulates an overriding public interest in electricity generation from renewable energies as well as a public security interest,” the Federal Ministry of Economics announced in response to an inquiry by the newspaper.
The specification is important for discretionary and public interest rulings by authorities and institutions.
Latest government power-grab
If this law passes, and it will pass because there is no real opposition apart from the AfD party, the path is cleared for Germany. Then wind turbines will be forced to be built directly next to residential areas, and ownership rights will be undermined.
That is the revolution from above. That is energy fascism. Resistance must be stirred up here – and it fatally reminds us of the power grabbing in these times of Corona!
The massively green electricity damaged Wattenrat East Friesian comments on this new underhanded approach as follows:
The renewable energy industry is insatiable, ideologically consolidated and closely linked to politics – and above all very inventive,
if it concerns the preservation of its ecclesiastical income, which is paid by all current customers through the EEG green energy feed in act to the tune of double-digit billions annually.
Now the use of renewable energies is even supposed to “serve public safety”, says the draft of the new Renewable Energy Sources Act. This would make wind farm sites easier to implement. This is incredibly brazen and wrong because the renewable energies (wind and sun) only work depending on the weather. Especially wind power plants endanger the security of supply due to the erratic feed-in through grid instability unstable power grids, are therefore a public safety risk.”
Donate – choose an amount
October 13, 2020 at 01:07PM
By Paul Homewood
Misuse of the EM-DAT disaster database is not confined to the corrupt UN. Readers may recall an IPPR report, trumpeted by Roger Harrabin, which ludicrously claimed that “since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold.”
It was to be sadly the subject of one of the last articles by the late, great Christopher Booker:
How ironic it was last week to hear the BBC leading its news on that Commons report claiming that our “democracy is being destroyed” by the flood of “fake news” spread by social media. In fact, thanks to the relentless bias of its own coverage of so many issues, there is no more influential source of “fake news” than the BBC itself. Here are two glaring, but far from untypical, recent examples.
The first began earlier in February with puffs on the BBC News website and Radio 4’s Today programme by Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s “environment analyst”, for a report by a body called the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), warning of “multiple crises” that threaten to “destabilise” the world’s entire environmental system. Particularly striking was a repeated claim that, since 2005, thanks to climate change, there has been a 15-fold increase in floods across the world and a 20-fold increase in “extreme temperature events”.
This seemed so startling that it prompted Paul Homewood, the diligent statistical analyst, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog to track down the evidence for these claims. It turned out that they originated from a database of natural disasters, EM-DAT. According to Homewood, this showed that the chief reason for these rocketing increases was a very significant change in the way such “disasters” were being recorded, to include thousands of more recent events that would previously have been far too small to register in the global figures (the IPPR itself warned that these figures should, therefore, be treated with “caution”).
But then Homewood found that the IPPR version was taken from something cited as the “GMO White Paper”, which might have sounded scientific. In fact, the “GMO” stands for Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo, the asset management firm run by Jeremy Grantham, who also funds the Grantham Institute on Climate Change at two London universities, Imperial College and the LSE (similar figures have been quoted by Lord Stern, the chair of the LSE branch).
Even the BBC realised that it had come rather a cropper on these claims. Subsequently, it allowed for at least a partial correction, aided by Mark Lynas, the climate campaigner, and the authors of that disaster database to which Grantham attributed his figures. But the impact of this was infinitely less than that of the coverage by Harrabin.
It was he who, back in 2006, was the organiser of that “secret seminar” between top BBC executives and green activists, which led to the BBC policy that – despite its statutory obligation to report only with “impartiality” – because the science on climate change was now settled, there was no need to give “equal space” to views that questioned it (with results so much in evidence ever since).
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
October 13, 2020 at 12:45PM