JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Power companies ask EU to step in on Spanish profit claw-back plan

Spain says older emissions-free plants have received a profits boost from high power prices in the broader market that has been increased because they are exempt from paying for pollution permits needed to burn fossil fuels such as gas and coal

Now that statement overshadow's even Jay @ his best!

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/power-companies-ask-eu-step-spanish-profit-claw-back-plan-2022-06-27/

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Yep, converting fossil fuel plants into grid batteries and using the pre existing grid connection is the way to go. Here in California we put our biggest battery in an old natural gas power plant and we are planning to replicate the process all over the state. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yep, converting fossil fuel plants into grid batteries and using the pre existing grid connection is the way to go. Here in California we put our biggest battery in an old natural gas power plant and we are planning to replicate the process all over the state. 

Dutch join Germany, Austria, in reverting to coal

The Netherlands said it would lift all restrictions on power stations fired by the fossil fuel, which were previously limited to just over a third of output.

Berlin and Vienna made similar announcements on Sunday as Moscow, facing biting sanctions over Ukraine, cuts gas supplies to energy-starved Europe.

"The cabinet has decided to immediately withdraw the restriction on production for coal-fired power stations from 2002 to 2024," Dutch climate and energy minister Rob Jetten told journalists in The Hague.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220620-dutch-join-germany-austria-in-reverting-to-coal

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 2:19 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

It isn't so! Numbers allow you to see reality. and show everyone how clueless fools like you are.

Storage makes renewables reliable and dispatchable but you just can't comprehend that can you?

Europe’s grid-scale energy storage capacity will expand 20-fold by 2031

Ambitious European net zero targets, cutting dependency on Russian fossil fuel, regulatory change and growing investor confidence will unlock 42 GW of vital energy storage capacity https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/europes-grid-scale-energy-storage-capacity-will-expand-20-fold-by-2031/

20GWh pumped hydro energy storage plant starting operations in Switzerland https://www.energy-storage.news/20gwh-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-plant-starting-operations-in-switzerland/

Swedish firms ink deal to make green hydrogen with wind power https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/12/sweden_green_hydrogen/

Quinbrook to build 460MWh BESS at former coal plant site in Wales, UK

Vattenfall starts filling up 200MW thermal storage tower in Berlin

Construction starts on 200MWh Fluence BESS projects in Lithuania for 2022 completion

 

Net Zero is a ridiculous policy with no scientific rationale. 

The only reasonable policy is to allow market realities to determine energy supplies.

Even a non-economist should be able to understand that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So now you are a globalist. 

 

Under the AMI Hood

Now in its 17th year, Cars.com’s American-Made Index ranks vehicles built and bought in the U.S. for the 2022 model year. We consider five major factors:

  • Location(s) of final assembly
  • Percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts
  • Countries of origin for all available engines
  • Countries of origin for all available transmissions
  • U.S. manufacturing workforce

While we don’t reveal the weighting and calculation methodology, all five factors above play a significant role, as do a number of disqualifiers explained below. Models are ranked on a 100-point scale, with heavier curb weights functioning as a tiebreaker when necessary.

Final assembly location(s)

Arguably the most important factor for index qualification is final assembly at one of 48 U.S. plants run by 16 major automaker groups and their subsidiaries that currently mass-produce light-duty passenger vehicles. (We adopt the Federal Highway Administration’s definition of light-duty vehicles, which allows for up to 10,000 pounds’ gross vehicle weight rating.)

But automakers run scores of additional plants for powertrains, castings, stampings, batteries and other vehicle parts, while third-party suppliers run additional facilities beyond that. And just because a model may be made in a U.S. assembly plant doesn’t necessarily mean it’s exclusively made here. We account for this with scoring reductions for imported volume.

Percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts

This component employs data from the American Automobile Labeling Act, which has been in effect since 1994 and requires automakers to report the overall percentage of U.S. and Canadian content, by value, for most vehicles they sell. Some automakers report a single percentage per given model sold; others break out unique percentages by powertrain, trim level or assembly location. In such cases, the AMI employs sales-weighted averages for the score.

Combining Canadian and U.S. parts content is a clear flaw of the AALA that we can’t reverse-engineer, but a clear advantage is that unlike other leading systems rating domestic automotive content — e.g., calculations for regional value content under trade agreements or delineations for import versus domestic cars in fuel-economy mandates — the AALA makes this information more legible for the public. The act requires automakers disclose this percentage on window stickers or nearby placards for most vehicles not yet sold (though we’ve come across dealerships that don’t comply).

While automakers don’t furnish U.S. versus Canadian parts content and public data don’t exist to distinguish each, we compensate by factoring in engine and transmission origins to more accurately identify two major cost-intensive components of each vehicle.

Countries of origin for all available engines

The AALA mandates automakers report the country of origin for all available engines and transmissions, but it can get complex — a nameplate might have one available engine from one country but another from a different country. As with U.S. and Canadian parts content, the AMI applies sales-weighted scoring to account for the variances.

Countries of origin for all available transmissions

The process plays out similarly among transmissions, another AALA requirement. For example, the same transmission can come from one or another country, depending on the car. Again, the index applies weighted scores as needed.

U.S. manufacturing workforce

The AALA doesn’t focus on labor value, especially in a vehicle’s final assembly. Thus, we analyze each automaker’s direct U.S. workforce involved in the manufacture of light-duty vehicles and their parts, factored against that automaker’s U.S. production footprint, to determine its workforce factor.

There are also factors accounted for to disqualify vehicles. Regardless of assembly location, these vehicles are ineligible:

  • Models with a gross vehicle weight rating above 8,500 pounds — mostly full-size vans, three-quarter- and 1-ton pickup trucks, and larger commercial vehicles — which are exempt from AALA requirements.
  • Models from automakers that build fewer than 1,000 cars in a given model year. Such cars are exempt from certain AALA requirements.
  • Models set for imminent discontinuation, or production moving outside the U.S., without a clear U.S.-built successor.
  • Models not yet on sale at the time of the study (in this case, spring 2022) even if they’re from the current model year.
  • Models intended solely for government or commercial fleets.
  • Models that don’t meet minimum sales or inventory thresholds. (Such thresholds cover roughly 98% of all passenger vehicle sales, so exclusions here are minimal.)
  • Models for which we cannot verify sufficient information from automakers, dealership audits, Cars.com inventory and government records.

Among FHWA light-duty vehicles fully assembled in the U.S., the above disqualifications knocked 45 model-year 2022 vehicles off the list:

  • Acura NSX; Buick Encore GX; Cadillac CT4; Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, Express, Silverado 1500 Limited and Silverado HD, and Spark; Ford Bronco Sport, E-Series, F-Series Super Duty, Police Interceptor Utility and Transit; GMC Savana, and Sierra 1500 Limited and Sierra HD; Honda Clarity Plug-in Hybrid and Insight; Jeep Grand Cherokee WK; Lucid Air; Mercedes-Benz Sprinter; Nissan NV, NV200 and Rogue Sport; Ram HD and ProMaster; Rivian R1S and R1T; Toyota Avalon and Sequoia; Volkswagen Passat
  • Electric, hybrid or plug-in hybrid versions of the BMW X5; Ford Escape, Explorer, F-150, Police Interceptor Utility and Transit; Karma GS-6; Lincoln Aviator and Corsair; Toyota Tundra; and Volvo S60

This year’s study draws on data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, all major automakers and Automotive News, as well as analyses of 263,211 vehicles in Cars.com inventory and in-person audits of 423 dealer vehicles.

A given model under AMI consideration includes all variants under the root nameplate unless they’re substantially electrified or use separate platforms. For example, the GMC Yukon includes the extended-length Yukon XL, while the Ford Mustang includes the high-performance Mustang Shelby GT500 — but the Toyota Camry and Camry Hybrid have separate AMI billing, as the latter has substantial electrification. (“Substantial” is important; we judge milder hybrid applications, like the Jeep Wrangler’s eTorque V-6, as acceptable to fold into the parent vehicle’s ranking.) Under our platform rule, vehicles like the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Grand Cherokee WK are separate AMI entrants due to their different underlying architecture.

By contrast, vehicles with different root nameplates are always distinct regardless of the architecture. The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon pickups have almost identical underpinnings, but since they have different names, they’re listed separately.

You never studied international trade economics? I guess not.

The purpose of international trade is to maximize the allocative efficiency of the American economy, but it takes a real political leader to achieve trade laws which allow for that.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nuclear is green. The part about natural gas is just some replacement of Russian gas that won't be available because of the war. Using Russian gas was always part of the transition plan. This is a complete nothing burger.

"Transition Plan"? Transition to what? More Green Dreaming.

85% of the energy supply is fossil fuel, and that will not change appreciably going forward.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Net Zero is a ridiculous policy with no scientific rationale. 

The only reasonable policy is to allow market realities to determine energy supplies.

Even a non-economist should be able to understand that.

The market reality is that coal is outrageously expensive and renewables are the low cost economic choice.

image.png.ed6e74dffb47dda1a60056d1c4ebb47f.png

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The market reality is that coal is outrageously expensive and renewables are the low cost economic choice.

image.png.ed6e74dffb47dda1a60056d1c4ebb47f.png

 

Only till production is scaled back up. I give you this to ponder...why would a company invest to scale back up..When it's a known fact once again it will be ostracized...Things have a odd way of balancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Only till production is scaled back up. I give you this to ponder...why would a company invest to scale back up..When it's a known fact once again it will be ostracized...Things have a odd way of balancing.

You are correct the price of fossil fuels will stay elevated because supply is not going to scale backup. No one wants to invest in a stranded asset. The continued high price of fossil fuels will just keep on increasing the incentive to move to lower cost renewables. It is a key part of the fossil fuel death spiral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who blew up the Georgia Guidestones!?

It was Climate Change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metal-hydrogen battery going into high-volume production with 5GWh of customer orders

EnerVenue-battery.jpg

Startup Enervenue has already got 5GWh of customer orders for its metal-hydrogen battery for stationary storage, with a 25GWh opportunity pipeline in North America alone.

The company is rapidly commercialising its batteries, which are based on a technology used in space applications like on the International Space Station and the Hubble telescope.

Enervenue believes a low-cost, durable version for terrestrial use can become a market leader in stationary energy storage, CEO Jorg Heinemann told Energy-Storage.news.

The company only emerged from stealth mode in August 2020. Having since raised US$125 million, including a US$100 million Series A funding round in Q3 last year and more recently securing a key materials supply deal, its cells – or ‘vessels’ as the company describes them – are being made on a semi-automated production line in Fremont, California.

High-volume production is expected to begin before the end of this year in Fremont and a gigafactory is being planned for a site in the US Midwest, mass producing 1.2kWh vessels which can be stacked together to make much larger systems for grid-scale or even distributed energy applications.

As noted in previous coverage on this site, the technology’s advantages include the ability to operate in ambient temperatures from -40°C to 60°C for a 30-year lifespan or roughly 30,000 cycles without degradation and at charge and discharge rates from C/10+ to 5C. It can also cost-effectively provide storage durations between 2 and 12 hours, Enervenue has claimed.

“We’ve also improved on the overall performance, even better than we anticipated. Significantly better: we’re getting over 85% round trip efficiency. That basically puts us in line with lithium-ion on a net basis,” Heinemann said.

Lithium-ion of course remains very much the battery chemistry of choice for the vast majority of the stationary battery storage industry.

However, Enervenue has found a sizeable number of customers willing to accept many of its claims and pick the metal-hydrogen battery (the metal being nickel), as well as, or in some cases instead of, the more well-known incumbent.

“On the commercial side, at this point, we have over 5GWh-worth of customer commitments, including those that we’ve announced publicly: the 2.4GWh announcement with Pine Gate Renewables and the 420MWh announcement with Grupo Sonnel in Puerto Rico,” the CEO said.

“There’s another 2.5GWh that we haven’t yet announced publicly that I can tell you is there. And then we have an enormous pipeline behind that of an additional 25GWh, just in North America.”

Just before the end of June, Enervenue complete agreements for the plating equipment and supply of materials it needs, with Precision Process and Precious Plate, both based in Niagara Falls and owned by the same entity.

Precision Process will be the exclusive supplier of Enervenue’s plating manufacturing equipment and build them at the battery company’s production lines over the next five years. Precious Plate will be exclusive supplier of the batteries’ plated anode materials, again over five years.

Precious Plate will manufacture sufficient materials for 5GWh of Enervenue vessels annually by 2026 through ramp up of its facilities in Niagara Falls but has secured land to be able to support up to 10GWh of production in future.

In the full interview with Jorg Heinemann, to be published on Energy-Storage.news in the coming days, the CEO explains the competitive edge that Enervenue believes it has and why it could even beat lithium-ion with the cost reduction roadmap it has implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are correct the price of fossil fuels will stay elevated because supply is not going to scale backup. No one wants to invest in a stranded asset. The continued high price of fossil fuels will just keep on increasing the incentive to move to lower cost renewables. It is a key part of the fossil fuel death spiral.

That short sided thought process will be the end of many movements,  environmental, socialism and progressive idolgy. 

There is no power in being submissive, yet they have doomed themselves into just that. Enjoy the ride of arrogance.

Edited by Eyes Wide Open

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

17 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

That short sided thought process will be the end of many movements,  environmental, socialism and progressive idolgy. 

There is no power in power in being submissive, yet they have doomed themselves into just that. Enjoy the ride of arrogance.

I suppose you still use Kodak film, a Nokia phone (or do you prefer Blackberry?) and rent your movies on DVD from a shop in a strip mall.

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 2:47 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

The article that picture is from is about a report that is obvious junk. It does not differentiate between concentrating solar which is obsolete and going away and photovoltaic panels. It attributes all the deaths from CSP equally to simple black stationary panels which it says are a problem because birds kill themselves by flying into them. That is utterly stupid. 

"Fatalities of birds predominantly are thought to be caused by collisions with ... PV panels"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211558

Well, I reviewed information on slaughter of birds and bats and here is commentary from the "royal society" you apparently follow.  So, is this the report you were referring to:

 

All this pressure to go renewable has to lead to more animal deaths as wind and solar generation expands. The Royal Society paper states that of California’s “23 vulnerable bird species studied (barn owls, golden eagles, road runners, yellow-billed cuckoos…), scientists have found 11 are now experiencing at least a 20% decline in their population growth rates because wind turbines and solar panels are killing them and/or destroying their limited-range habitat.”

Birds and bats are particularly susceptible to wind turbines, which nowadays are typically mounted on towers 200 feet high or higher with rotors spanning 150 to 260 feet, which means blade tips can reach higher than 400 feet above the ground. Rotors can spin at speeds from 11 to 28 rpm with blade tip speeds of between 138 and 182 mph, the U.S. Department of Energy reports.

Birds tend to be killed directly by collisions with turbines, meteorological towers, and power transmission lines, and indirectly by habitat disruption, behavioral effects, drowning in wastewater evaporation ponds, and other causes. Bats are typically killed by collisions and barotrauma, which means catastrophic damage to internal organs caused by rapid air pressure changes. Migratory bats could go extinct if wind energy production keeps growing, a May 2017 paper in Biological Conservation argues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Well, I reviewed information on slaughter of birds and bats and here is commentary from the "royal society" you apparently follow.  So, is this the report you were referring to:

 

All this pressure to go renewable has to lead to more animal deaths as wind and solar generation expands. The Royal Society paper states that of California’s “23 vulnerable bird species studied (barn owls, golden eagles, road runners, yellow-billed cuckoos…), scientists have found 11 are now experiencing at least a 20% decline in their population growth rates because wind turbines and solar panels are killing them and/or destroying their limited-range habitat.”

Birds and bats are particularly susceptible to wind turbines, which nowadays are typically mounted on towers 200 feet high or higher with rotors spanning 150 to 260 feet, which means blade tips can reach higher than 400 feet above the ground. Rotors can spin at speeds from 11 to 28 rpm with blade tip speeds of between 138 and 182 mph, the U.S. Department of Energy reports.

Birds tend to be killed directly by collisions with turbines, meteorological towers, and power transmission lines, and indirectly by habitat disruption, behavioral effects, drowning in wastewater evaporation ponds, and other causes. Bats are typically killed by collisions and barotrauma, which means catastrophic damage to internal organs caused by rapid air pressure changes. Migratory bats could go extinct if wind energy production keeps growing, a May 2017 paper in Biological Conservation argues.

 

 

I don't follow the Royal Society. I did something really crazy. I clicked the link in your post. 

Clean Air Act saved 1.5 billion birds

Improved air quality, reduced ozone pollution may have averted bird deaths

Date:November 24, 2020

 
Cornell University
 
US pollution regulations meant to protect humans from dirty air are also saving birds. So concludes a new continent-wide study. Study authors found that improved air quality under a federal program to reduce ozone pollution may have averted the loss of 1.5 billion birds during the past 40 years.
 

Birds suffer from air pollution, just like we do

Many of the same emissions that drive climate change present an immediate health concern for bird populations.

We’ve all heard about how air pollution can threaten human health, but how does it impact birds? Over the years, there have been clues.

Following Britain’s Clean Air Act of 1956, it was reported that several species of birds returned to London. In 1986, Mexico City’s air pollution levels were so severe that various news sources reported birds falling from the sky in drovesIn 2013, particulate matter from nearby forest fires shrouded Singapore so completely that locals found dead birds near their homes.

Studies have confirmed that birds, which share the air that we breathe, are afflicted by the same respiratory problems as humans when exposed to air pollution. In addition, field studies have shown that the effects of air pollution can extend to bird habitats as well, changing the landscape in subtle but important ways.

lasmog_ben_amstutz.jpg?itok=E7S6d4oo
Smog over downtown Los Angeles. Photo: Ben Amstutz/flickr creative commons

Direct Impacts on Birds 

Ground-level ozone (O3) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), two of the most common air pollutants in California, are powerful oxidants that can cause direct, irreversible damage to birds’ lungs. Long-term exposure can lead to inflammation, ruptured blood vessels, and lung failure.

Birds are exposed to more airborne particles – or particulate matter (PM) – than humans because birds have a higher breathing rate and spend more time in the open air. Extra-fine particles, especially those less than 2.5 microns in diameter, are small enough lodge into the deepest branches of the lungs. 

Studies have shown that long-term exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic chemicals commonly emitted by traffic, may cause reduced egg production and hatching, increased clutch or brood abandonment, and reduced growth in birds.A study in Spain found that blackbirds exposed to long-term air pollution were found to have significantly lower body weights

PAHs have also been found to cause DNA mutations in Double-crested Cormorants in Canada, which can then be passed to their offspring.7 In humans and birds alike, DNA mutations may disrupt essential cell processes and cause cells to divide uncontrollably – a condition otherwise known as cancer.

Passerine birds exposed to long-term air pollution were found to have lower red blood cell counts and other significant differences in their blood composition, according to a study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

China Sets New EV Record!

 

Against the backdrop of the halving of the ICE vehicle purchase tax, not only were NEVs unaffected, they improved more than expected sequentially, the CPCA said.

China's wholesale sales of passenger NEVs hit record 571,000 units in June, CPCA data show-CnEVPost

China's wholesale sales of new energy passenger vehicles reached 571,000 units in June, surpassing last December's 505,000 units and setting a new historical record, according to data released today by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA).

This represents a year-on-year increase of 141.4 percent, up 35.3 percent from May, the CPCA said, adding that not only were new energy vehicles (NEVs) unaffected by the start of the halving of the purchase tax on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, but the sequential improvement also exceeded expectations.

In June, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) continued to account for the vast majority of NEV sales, with wholesale sales of 452,000 units, or 79 percent. Plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) accounted for 119,000 units of wholesale sales in June.

From January to June, wholesale sales of new energy passenger vehicles in China were 2,467,000 units, up 122.9 percent year-on-year.

In terms of retail sales, China's new energy passenger vehicle sales reached 532,000 units in June, up 130.8 percent year-on-year and 47.6 percent year-on-year, according to the CPCA.

Retail sales of new energy passenger vehicles in China from January to June were 2.248 million units, up 122.5 percent year-on-year.

Improved supply, along with expectations of higher oil prices, is driving a continued boom in the NEV market, the CPCA said, adding that rising oil prices and unchanged electricity prices, in particular, are allowing for strong orders for electric vehicles.

The year-on-year performance of both NEV and ICE vehicle sales in June was significantly boosted by policy, the CPCA noted.

Local governments introduced policies to encourage consumption, with some subsidies and consumer vouchers falling on a first-come, first-served basis or ending at the end of June, further boosting the auto market's hot sales, the CPCA said.

In terms of wholesale sales, China's NEV penetration rate stood at 26.1 percent in June, up 10.8 percentage points from 15.3 percent in June 2021.

In June, the penetration rate of NEVs reached 45 percent for local brands and 27.5 percent for luxury brands, compared to 4.8 percent for mainstream joint venture brands.

In terms of retail sales, the penetration rate of NEVs was 27.4 percent in June, up 12.8 percentage points from the 14.6 percent penetration rate in June 2021. Local brands were 50.1 percent, luxury brands were 28 percent and mainstream joint venture brands were 4.5 percent.

 
Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EIA: US battery storage tripled to 4.6GW in 2021

image.png.e9ed398ce356155a78a9e904af500a59.png

Battery storage capacity in the US more than tripled to 4,631GW in 2021 and increasingly broadened out of ancillary services, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The amount of battery storage capacity grew 220%, from 1,438MW in 2020, driven by the commissioning of 106 utility-scale systems with 3,202MW, the EIA said. That means 2,923MW of new battery storage entered commercial operation over the course of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I suppose you still use Kodak film, a Nokia phone (or do you prefer Blackberry?) and rent your movies on DVD from a shop in a strip mall.

Trinkets? and strip malls????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I don't follow the Royal Society. I did something really crazy. I clicked the link in your post. 

Clean Air Act saved 1.5 billion birds

Improved air quality, reduced ozone pollution may have averted bird deaths

Date:November 24, 2020

 
Cornell University
 
US pollution regulations meant to protect humans from dirty air are also saving birds. So concludes a new continent-wide study. Study authors found that improved air quality under a federal program to reduce ozone pollution may have averted the loss of 1.5 billion birds during the past 40 years.
 

Birds suffer from air pollution, just like we do

Many of the same emissions that drive climate change present an immediate health concern for bird populations.

We’ve all heard about how air pollution can threaten human health, but how does it impact birds? Over the years, there have been clues.

Following Britain’s Clean Air Act of 1956, it was reported that several species of birds returned to London. In 1986, Mexico City’s air pollution levels were so severe that various news sources reported birds falling from the sky in drovesIn 2013, particulate matter from nearby forest fires shrouded Singapore so completely that locals found dead birds near their homes.

Studies have confirmed that birds, which share the air that we breathe, are afflicted by the same respiratory problems as humans when exposed to air pollution. In addition, field studies have shown that the effects of air pollution can extend to bird habitats as well, changing the landscape in subtle but important ways.

lasmog_ben_amstutz.jpg?itok=E7S6d4oo
Smog over downtown Los Angeles. Photo: Ben Amstutz/flickr creative commons

Direct Impacts on Birds 

Ground-level ozone (O3) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), two of the most common air pollutants in California, are powerful oxidants that can cause direct, irreversible damage to birds’ lungs. Long-term exposure can lead to inflammation, ruptured blood vessels, and lung failure.

Birds are exposed to more airborne particles – or particulate matter (PM) – than humans because birds have a higher breathing rate and spend more time in the open air. Extra-fine particles, especially those less than 2.5 microns in diameter, are small enough lodge into the deepest branches of the lungs. 

Studies have shown that long-term exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic chemicals commonly emitted by traffic, may cause reduced egg production and hatching, increased clutch or brood abandonment, and reduced growth in birds.A study in Spain found that blackbirds exposed to long-term air pollution were found to have significantly lower body weights

PAHs have also been found to cause DNA mutations in Double-crested Cormorants in Canada, which can then be passed to their offspring.7 In humans and birds alike, DNA mutations may disrupt essential cell processes and cause cells to divide uncontrollably – a condition otherwise known as cancer.

Passerine birds exposed to long-term air pollution were found to have lower red blood cell counts and other significant differences in their blood composition, according to a study.

And then there is this:

Turbines Kill So Many Birds They're Effectively an Apex Predator

The effect of wind farms on ecosystems is effectively the same as if a new predator were introduced to the area.

NOV 6, 2018
 
Wind Energy
FLORIAN GAERTNERGETTY IMAGES
 

Wind turbines are vital for sustainable power, providing cheap electricity without producing any sort of pollution. But they can be deadly for birds, and new researchshows just how deadly: Wind turbines kill so many birds that in ecosystems where they are placed, the turbines effectively take on the role of a top predator.

We’ve long since known that wind turbines are a danger to birds. A typical wind farm can kill thousands of birds every year, including raptors like falcons and eagles. The deaths of these larger birds are the real problem because they can cause ripple effects throughout the entire ecosystem.

Take, for instance, a wind farm in the Western Ghats region of India, where a group of researchers from the Indian Institute of Science performed their study. In the area of the wind farm, raptors were around four times less common than in other areas. They kept dying to the turbines, which is not great for the raptors but good news for fan-throated lizards, the raptors’ prey. 

MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS

Toyota Tundra Is the Ultimate Adventure Companion

 
Previous VideoPauseNext Video
Unmute
Current Time 2:15
Loaded: 98.15%
 
 
Remaining Time -0:30
CaptionsFullscreen
 
WATCH: Toyota Tundra Is the Ultimate Adventure Companion

In and around the wind farm, lizard populations exploded, completely unchecked by predation. So few of them were being eaten that they even lost almost all fear of danger. The researchers found they could approach the lizards without their running away. The lizards, in turn, reduced the population of their own prey species, causing a dramatic change in the ecosystem.

If there’s one thing humans have learned about ecology, it’s that even small changes can completely upset the balance of an ecosystem, leading to dramatic and often unpredictable changes. Removing one species can change everything else, and usually not in a good way. It’s not clear what the long-term consequences of the wind farm will be, but they will likely be bad.

 

Source: Nature

 

AVERY THOMPSONtwitter.com/physicallyavery
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io
 

Need to know the biggest scientific breakthroughs in our galaxy? 

Get our newsletter for most fascinating space insights. 

Email address
I'M IN. 

By signing up, I agree to Hearst Magazines’ Terms of Use (including the dispute resolution procedures); my information will be used as described in the Privacy Notice.

 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, JoMack said:

And then there is this:

Turbines Kill So Many Birds They're Effectively an Apex Predator

The effect of wind farms on ecosystems is effectively the same as if a new predator were introduced to the area.

NOV 6, 2018
 
Wind Energy
FLORIAN GAERTNERGETTY IMAGES
 

Wind turbines are vital for sustainable power, providing cheap electricity without producing any sort of pollution. But they can be deadly for birds, and new researchshows just how deadly: Wind turbines kill so many birds that in ecosystems where they are placed, the turbines effectively take on the role of a top predator.

We’ve long since known that wind turbines are a danger to birds. A typical wind farm can kill thousands of birds every year, including raptors like falcons and eagles. The deaths of these larger birds are the real problem because they can cause ripple effects throughout the entire ecosystem.

Take, for instance, a wind farm in the Western Ghats region of India, where a group of researchers from the Indian Institute of Science performed their study. In the area of the wind farm, raptors were around four times less common than in other areas. They kept dying to the turbines, which is not great for the raptors but good news for fan-throated lizards, the raptors’ prey. 

MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS

Toyota Tundra Is the Ultimate Adventure Companion

 
Previous VideoPauseNext Video
Unmute
Current Time 2:15
Loaded: 98.15%
 
 
Remaining Time -0:30
CaptionsFullscreen
 
WATCH: Toyota Tundra Is the Ultimate Adventure Companion
 

In and around the wind farm, lizard populations exploded, completely unchecked by predation. So few of them were being eaten that they even lost almost all fear of danger. The researchers found they could approach the lizards without their running away. The lizards, in turn, reduced the population of their own prey species, causing a dramatic change in the ecosystem.

If there’s one thing humans have learned about ecology, it’s that even small changes can completely upset the balance of an ecosystem, leading to dramatic and often unpredictable changes. Removing one species can change everything else, and usually not in a good way. It’s not clear what the long-term consequences of the wind farm will be, but they will likely be bad.

 

Source: Nature

 

AVERY THOMPSONtwitter.com/physicallyavery
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io
 

Need to know the biggest scientific breakthroughs in our galaxy? 

Get our newsletter for most fascinating space insights. 

Email address
I'M IN. 

By signing up, I agree to Hearst Magazines’ Terms of Use (including the dispute resolution procedures); my information will be used as described in the Privacy Notice.

 
 

 

wind farms aren’t quite the bird slayers they’re often portrayed to be – one study found that they cause 0.4 deaths per gigawatt hour (GWh) of electricity generated, compared with 5.2 dead birds for every GWh generated by fossil-fuelled power stations 

But a recent study from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research might offer a solution. Researchers compared bird mortality rates over five years at a Norwegian wind farm and then randomly selected four out of the 68 turbines for a new paint job. They found that painting a single wind turbine blade black could reduce bird fatalities by 72%, and it was most effective at reducing collision deaths for birds of prey, such as white-tailed eagles https://theconversation.com/painting-wind-turbines-black-could-help-protect-birds-as-long-as-it-doesnt-disrupt-their-migration-145407#:~:text=They found that painting a,tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla).

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 8:19 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Speaking to global issues....

Amid energy crisis, E.U. says gas, nuclear can sometimes be ‘green’

 and 
Updated July 6, 2022 at 11:07 a.m. EDT|Published July 6, 2022 at 6:02 a.m. EDT
 
Anti-nuclear protesters take part in demonstrations in Strasbourg, France, ahead of a vote at the European Parliament on a motion to block the European Commission's plans to grant a green label to gas and nuclear investments on July 6. (Patrick Hertzog/AFP/Getty Images)
Listen
4 min
Comment
 
 
Gift Article
Share

BRUSSELS — European lawmakers voted Wednesday to move ahead with a plan to label some nuclear and natural gas power as “green” energy, a closely watched decision that could shape climate policy for years to come.

At issue is a European Union framework known as the “E.U. taxonomy” that is intended to guide investment toward projects that are in line with the bloc’s goal to be climate neutral by 2050.

In February, weeks before Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine, the E.U.’s executive arm presented a plan to classify some natural gas and nuclear power as “transitional” green investments in some circumstances, spurring a furious backlash.

 

Five months later, as Russia wields natural gas as a weapon and the global energy crisis intensifies, legislators at the European Parliament rejected an objection to the proposal in a 328-to-278 vote.

 
Advertisement
 

Those who support including gas and nuclear argue that they are needed to ease the transition to renewables, especially given the impact of the war on energy prices. The European Commission welcomed the vote, saying it was “pragmatic and realistic approach” to helping countries toward climate neutrality.

Critics are not convinced. Many fear the bloc is getting weak-kneed when it comes to climate goals. There were audible “boos” when the tally was read at the seat of Parliament in Strasbourg, France. A news release from the Greenpeace environmental activist group called it “dirty politics” that would “keep more money flowing to Putin’s war chest.”

 

“This will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition and deepen our dependency on Russian fuels,” climate and environmental activist Greta Thunberg wrote Wednesday on Twitter. “The hypocrisy is striking, but unfortunately not surprising.”

 
Advertisement
 

The decision comes as the war in Ukraine drags into its fifth month and European leaders face skyrocketing gas prices, threats of additional Russian cutoffs and growing domestic calls for governments to do more.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday said the commission was drawing up emergency plans to “protect our Single Market and industrial supply chains from disruptions.” There will also be a special meeting on July 26 for ministers to discuss “winter preparedness” for the energy sector.

 

At the heart of the debate is whether gas-fired generators and nuclear power plants can ever, under any circumstances, be considered sustainable or green.

 

Before the war, the inclusion of gas was backed by member states that argued it was needed as a “bridge” while countries weaned themselves off fossil fuels and increased their renewable capacity. France and others pushed for the inclusion of nuclear power, despite strong opposition from Germany.

 
Advertisement
 

The plan was opposed not just by environmentalists but by some E.U. advisers and even the chief executive of a group representing large investors. Critics said the European Commission’s effort to “protect private investors from greenwashing” risked turning into greenwashing on an even larger scale.

Those who oppose the inclusion of gas in the green taxonomy have expressed concern that it will incentivize investment in fossil fuels and delay the E.U.’s transition to renewable energy. There are also concerns that it will establish a precedent, leading to similar guidelines elsewhere.

 

The war in Ukraine added new complexities to the debate. The war has made Europe rethink its reliance on Russia, particularly when it comes to fossil fuels, and has amplified calls for an accelerated energy transition.

 
Advertisement
 

The E.U. has agreed to phase out imports of coal and oil from Russia to hit the Kremlin’s war chest. But the bloc remains dependent on gas from Russia — a fact not lost on Putin, who has used this leverage to threaten and punish.

But defenders of the plan argue that the war has heightened the need for rapid investment in the infrastructure required to import gas from places other than Russia. They hope the new rules will spur a surge of investment in new gas pipelines or facilities for the import of liquefied natural gas.

“The ‘Immaculate Energy Transition’ does not exist,” Luis Garicano, a Spanish member of the European Parliament, tweeted Wednesday. “A sensible transition requires more than just renewables.”

 

Putin (the Mafia) lost control. Kiss nat gas good bye. Hello electric economy. 
 

Do please recall the failure correctly, be it Putin or mother nature both have been proven to be unpredictable since their beginning. Only mindless children wouldplace the trust in such area's..

The corruption in Europe has nothing to do with trust or the common good of its people. It has everything to do with FF politics by a powerful segment of society. You do get the harm to producers as the rest of us go electric. Putin does, the Saudi do, Trump does. The axis of evil. Lol Sleepy, (Biden)  kicking the pollution boys dirty little butts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bloomberg) — The U.S. and its allies have discussed trying to cap the price on Russian oil between $40 and about $60 a barrel, according to people familiar with the matter.

udmurtneft-udmurt-republic-russia-image-
 

Allies have been exploring several ways to limit Russia’s oil revenues while minimizing the impact on their own economies in discussions that began in the run-up to the Group of Seven summit. 

At the summit in Germany on June 28 leaders agreed to explore options to cap prices by banning insurance and transportation services needed to ship Russian crude and petroleum products unless the oil is purchased below an agreed price.
 

Well no shyt. No reason to pay high FF prices for any country that exports that product. Politicians are so square yellow buss slow. This is with Trump gone who is even slower. US wheat and corn has the same insane situation. High prices when we grow so much we export. A lot. The consumer pays extra for abundance. Putin and his thugs own the Republicans? Who dreams up this stuff. Lol Humans are so dumb. Forget the bs. $1 over delivered $60 and the oil dosent sell. For any reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Boat said:

Putin (the Mafia) lost control. Kiss nat gas good bye. Hello electric economy. 
 

Police fire on Dutch farmers protesting environmental rules

Farmers have blocked supermarkets, distributions centers and roads in response to government plans to cut nitrogen emissions.

 

Dutch farmers have this week been protesting government plans that could require farmers to use less fertilizer and reduce their livestock numbers, which could force some farms to shut.

The Dutch government wants to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which are produced by livestock, by 2030. Cuts could reach 70 percent in some areas, under the plans.

In response, Dutch farmers have blocked supermarkets, distributions centers and roads in protests this week. Wednesday morning, they are expected to demonstrate at the Groningen Airport Elde, according to Dutch media.

https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-protest-nitrogen-emission-cut/

 

And then we have Lefty Louie getting the BOOT!

Boris Johnson’s exit leaves Tories searching for a hero (again)

 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2022 at 11:05 AM, Ecocharger said:

Net Zero is a ridiculous policy with no scientific rationale. 

The only reasonable policy is to allow market realities to determine energy supplies.

Even a non-economist should be able to understand that.

We agree, amazingly enough. But we do need to charge for pollution to make a fair system. Wind and solar pollute, right? So does nat gas and oil. Charge for the damage to health and end the mandates. Your wrong about the science. Every human is affected by pollution. FF is a leading culprit. Most of the leading causes of death is pollution related. If there were 5 billion humans instead of 7 the accumulated pollution would be less so you could say there were mitigating circumstances. But yea, the science is easy enough. It’s just guys like you and Putin don’t do science. You do Mafia, lies, deceit etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.