Climate Change Is Destabilizing Volcanoes or Climate Change Could Wake Up Canada’s Dormant Volcanoes

Interesting video about volcanoes and glaciers “starring” scientists from my alma mater.

I know the video is from the left-wing climate doom peddling CBC and it is quite shameful they use headlines implying climate change could “wake up” volcanoes.

I’ll concede that volcanoes can effect glaciers. But everything else is doom mongering.

A much better version of the story (from 3 months ago) is here.

“Researchers knew that fumaroles likely existed on the mountain — there had been reports of a sulphur-like smell near the mountain for years, not to mention hot springs in the area—but now, with the glaciers retreating, it seems they had emerged from beneath the snow and ice.”

 

Advertisements

Molten Sulphur on an Airplane

Snakes Molten Sulphur on an Airplane

They are planning for a massive geoengineering project to inject sulphur into the atmosphere to combat global warming.

I think they are insane.

A program to reduce Earth’s heat capture by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere from high-altitude aircraft is possible, inexpensive, and would be unlikely to remain secret.

“We developed the specifications for SAIL with direct input from several aerospace and engine companies. It’s equivalent in weight to a large narrow body passenger aircraft. But to sustain level flight at 20 kms, it needs roughly double the wing area of an equivalently sized airliner, and double the thrust, with four engines instead of two.

“At the same time, its fuselage would be stubby and narrow, sized to accommodate a heavy but dense mass of molten sulphur rather than the large volume of space and air required for passengers.”

The team estimated the total development costs at less than $2 billion for the airframe, and a further $350 million for modifying existing low-bypass engines.

The new planes would comprise a fleet of eight in the first year, rising to a fleet of just under 100 within 15 years. The fleet would fly just over 4,000 missions a year in year one, rising to just over 60,000 per year by year 15.

 

Probably bigger than the plane below.

Image result for crop dusting large

Laughable Claim That Canada Could Run 100% on Wind Water and Sunlight by 2050

There is a good blog post on how laughable it was to suggest that Canada could rely solely on wind, water and sunlight to meet our future energy needs by 2050.

Read it.

I plan to just talk about the number of facilities necessary to do this. The blue # is the necessary count. The red at the end is the # needed to be built by 2050.

  • Onshore wind: 34,993 – 5 MW units ( 2240 units currently installed) – ~33,000
  • Offshore wind: 27,242 – 5 MW units (currently no units in Canada) 27,242
  • Solar PV plant: 1690 – 50 MW facilities (currently 13 similar facilities) 1677
  • Solar CSP plants 450 – 100 MW facilities (currently 1 in operation) 449
  • Solar CSP plants for storage 275 – 100 MW facilities 275
  • Hydroelectric: Uses currently built facilities with efficiency gains
  • Wave energy: 26,227 – 0.75 MW installations (currently no unit in Canada) 26,227
  • Residential rooftop solar: 12,992,080 units (currently <2% of units installed) ~ 12,750,000
  • Commercial/govt rooftop solar: 1,383,183 units (currently <2% of units installed) ~1,360,00
  • Geothermal: 50 – 100 MW facilities (currently no such facility in Canada) 50
  • Tidal turbine: 2000 – 1 MW units (currently no units in Canada) 2000

“Lets look at the offshore wind platforms. As one of the two southern coasts, British Columbia would be responsible for close to half of the 27, 242 offshore units needed to achieve our national 100% WWS goal.  As of today, we have zero offshore wind facilities. “

This is laughable. Canada can’t even build a pipeline to carry oil from Alberta to tidewater in many years.

Imagine the regulatory approval … the lawsuits … the lack of skilled trades.

Its a joke.

But do read the blog post for more info.

 

German Electricity March 26 2018

Lets say its March 26th 2018 8pm in Germany and there is about 59GW of demand to keep the country functioning and you are a greenie looking forward to a day when there is no more nuclear or CO2 producing power plants..

Ooops.

0.00GW from solar.

1.13GW from wind.

9.27GW from nuclear. 

45.5GW from CO2 producing power plants (gas, coal, biomass, oil)

 

DRAX – 729 million pound Subsidy to Burn Forests

Drax is a coal power plant in the UK that has converted 3 out its 6 boilers to burn wood pellets.

Why is DRAX switching to wood pellets?

The EU has declared wood pellets to be green despite the fact wood pellets produce more CO2 than coal.

This is a bigger scam than diesel.

 

 Drax received subsidies worth £729m last year, all to be paid for by electricity users.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/drax-biomass-subsidies-rise-to-729m-in-2017/#more-32520

 

 

EU Will Be Razing Whole Forests to Save Them Or Something

The EU will be razing whole forests and burning them to produce lots of CO2 … all in the name of saving the planet from global warming.

Today’s European Parliament vote, like yesterday’s marine vote, delivers yet another dramatic death blow to our living planet. Razing whole forests to the ground to feed our energy use releases vastly increased carbon into our atmosphere; carbon which would otherwise be naturally stored in the forest. Converting land into biofuel plantations means wiping out nature and evicting local communities. This is a crime when well-located wind and solar power offer viable alternatives. Energy from biomass should be limited to waste and residues, not whole trees, forests and food. Such perverted outcomes do not help in the fight against climate change.”

I don’t believe the part about solar and wind offering viable alternatives.

And I don’t necessarily believe more CO2 is a bad thing.

But I do belive that burning whole forests is stupid and amazingly hypocitical when the AGW cult keeps telling  us CO2 is bad and fossil fuels are evil.

Coal is cheap. Natural gas is cheap and cleaner than coal. And produces less CO2 than coal and forests.