Renewable Energy from evaporation!

What will they think of next? I guess I could start a never-ending series with those few words. Yes, we are an inventive species, and you know how hot I am on novelty. So here is another new renewable energy technology. Touted as energy from 'evaporation', really it exploits the natural expansion and contraction of the size of bacterial spores as the humidity around them varies, so I guess it is using variations in humidity. But I am being pedantic, the following video explains this much better than I.

How much energy could you get from this technology? Quite a lot it seems.

"Researchers investigating the potential for evaporation to be used as a source of renewable energy have found that the United States’ reservoirs and lakes could produce 325 gigawatts of power. That’s equivalent to almost 70 percent of the energy that the country currently generates." 

That's one helluva lot of bacterial spores!

What will they think of next.

The science is NOT settled

The headline "It's worse than they thought: Warming is slower than predicted" (by Christopher Monckton) was enough to perk my curiosity.
Great headline, good story, though admittedly awash with technical details that make it hard to follow. Still I waded through to the end. In case you don't have the patience a potted summary goes like this; -

• In a recent paper "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C", climatologists Millar et al. have reported that global warming is not as rapid as their models have been predicting

• Monckton uses the figures in that paper together with IPCC models to demonstrate that the models are not only slightly out, but way out.  For example he cites that the measured global warming since 1850 is ~ 1 C(degree) whereas models predict this to be 2.75 C
• The current rate of warming is ~ 0.45C per century and with predicted increases in CO2 over the period , with some assumptions that you will have to read through yourself, the 1.5C target increase in global temperature by 2100 may be achieved without any mitigation efforts.

 It all leads to a rather stunning conclusion;-

"Though the Millar paper serves to conceal the true extent of the official exaggerations on which demands for “climate action” have been unwisely based, it is at another level an early crack in the dam that indicates that the entire edifice of nonsense is about to fail. Have courage! The truth that global warming will be small, harmless and net-beneficial will soon prevail over the screeching extremists. The Millar paper is not the beginning of the end, but it is at least the end of the beginning."

Well we will see. But one thing is sure, "the science is NOT settled"!

Time to jettison 'multiculturalism'

Europe provides a sobering lesson for Western societies besotted by the concept of 'multiculturalism'. The concept that all the cultures of this earth are basically equally acceptable, and that peaceful coexistence in the world will somehow materialize when all cultures are treated equally.

But all cultures are not the same! Over the centuries some cultures have totally transformed the lives of not only people in their own communities but through their worldwide influence most of the people of the world. What is called the 'Western world' evolved from the Judaeo-Christian faiths and values forged over time. Values including respect for the law, tolerance of diversity, and recognition of individual freedoms.

Western culture has extended lifespans, decreased poverty, educated the population and improved the security and individual freedom's of its communities. While Europe was building the modern world, most of the inhabitants of Africa, South America, Australasia were living much the same as they had for thousands of years in a cultural stagnation.

A recent video by Dinesh D'Souza of for Prager U demonstrates most emphatically that all cultures are not the same.

So what were the Europeans thinking when they accepted large numbers of migrants from a greatly different culture as migrants? No doubt they convinced themselves that education, welfare, and general exposure to European culture and values would quickly imbue the newcomers with these Western values. Alas the reality is far from this.

In his article "Merkel signals Ruin for Europe" in the Australian, Greg Sheridan provides some statistics indicating the lack of integration of these new migrants into their new Western host culture. He notes; -

• "in three million British households, no adult uses English as their main language.

• last year, in France, 33 per cent of high school students identified as Christian, while 25 per cent identified as Muslim.

• Only 22 per cent of Catholics say religion is important to them whereas more than 80 per cent of Muslims say ­religion is important to them.

• In 2008 a poll of British Muslims found that zero per cent thought homosexuality morally acceptable. A survey last year found 52 per cent of British Muslims thought homosexuality should be made ­illegal."

These are not signs that the new migrants have imbibed the wine of Western culture.

Sheridan concludes;

"in Douglas Murray’s brilliant new book,"The Strange Death of Europe". Murray starts with this bold assertion, “Europe is committing suicide”, and by the end of his 350 withering pages it is hard to disagree."

Europe's experience should be a warning to the rest of the Western world!

Meat of the Future

The quiet revolution to supply protein to the masses is making real waves. The article titled "China Signed a $300 Million Lab-Grown Meat Deal with Israel" demonstrates the significant investment in this technology. Once the dream of vegetarians, lab-grown meat eliminates the environmental and ethical issues associated with the meat industry. The promise is protein that is high quality, tasty, abundant, low cost and green.  Sounds too good to be true?  Watch this brief video to see the progress to date;-

Like many technologies today, development has been rapid but behind the scenes. If you consider that the cost of a lab-meat hamburger pattie today is just ~$11 compared to some $4 for a hamburger, you can see the progress that has already been made. It is very likely the cost gap will be eliminated in the coming years. Get ready!

Let the chickens come home to roost!

A rock and a hard place, so the saying goes. It is hard to see a more appropriate aphorism for the position the gov finds itself in the energy debate now raging.  To some extent it is problem of its own making, but completely so. Once a report is commissioned it is incumbent on the government to review and decide which parts it will accept.

It made a mistake by accepting 49 of the 50 recommendations. Leaving the CET out on its own meant it was going to receive increasing pressure to address it.

Yet the pressure is on. All the vested interests smell blood,. The pro renewables commentariat expect that government will be loathe to kibosh the key recommendation of their own report. So even if they compromise and put some coal-including limit on the target they will have won. So they are pushing for a quick decision

My advice to the government is to let the chickens come home to roost. If they can stand the pressure the coming summer with blackouts and  load-shedding will help to form a more objective assessment of the balance between intermittent renewables and base-load necessity. The real energy debate has really only just started, with many anti-RET only now putting their arguments. While the RET advocates are quick to blame the right wing of the LNP, the Nationals, the climate deniers, painting all opposers to renewables as troglodytes, this is not really biting. The electorate is painfully aware of high and rising energy prices and is fearful of load-shedding. Over time these factors will further move public opinion against tokenistic emissions targets. The government has time on its side.

I am sure Frydenberg is scrambling to find a solution that waters down the RET, or CET or whatever name you choose to give it, to what is acceptable to Turnbull. I guess there's the rub. On the one hand Tunbull must still have nightmares about his last energy policy fiasco that saw him sacked, but at the same time pride prevents him from acquiescing to Abbot-esque policies. As for this renaming option, with apologies to the great bard, a CET by any other name would still smell.

My advice to the government is to take their time. There is no reason for a quick decision on the CET. Let the debate continue to fester, let power shortages, black-outs, generate some realism into the energy debate. Energy policy could win the next election