fossil fuels

This essay provides stories and photos of ice and snow in the first half of May in 2017 and 2019 across Europe. Folklore tells Germans not to even plant grass seed before the middle of May, feasts of the Ice Saints: https://www.eisheilige.info/eisheilige-2019/. This is based on centuries of weather and climate experience that snow and ice can occur and kill seedlings in southern Germany until the 15th of May. This article provides stories and photos of cold and snow across Europe in 2017 and 2019. Almost nothing has changed regarding these rules and actual weather since the 1960s despite the majority of citizens in Germany, France and the United Kingdom falling under the wheels of fanatic man-made global warming alarmists in Paris, Potsdam and Berlin.

Germany's cost of switching to wind and solar energy for electricity, abandoning nuclear and coal will cost far more than 600 billion Euros and leave the country with precarious and expensive electrical energy. The problem of fossil fuels for space heating, process heat and transportation will still be there. Germany's decision to go 100% for wind and solar generated electrical energy will have very close to zero affect on climate change which is and always will be dominated by natural factors. Germany's potential enemies smile.

The success of democracy, liberty and prosperous capitalistic economies in Europe depends on Europe sticking with fossil fuels and nuclear. Because there are no other choices, Europe will have to stick to fossil fuels for most needs for space heating, process heat and transportation. France leads the way with nuclear powered electrification of railroads and urban public transportation. Not even Europe is close to following France in this area. Yet energy experts in France predict that the whole world can/will be powered by nuclear energy in less than 50 years.

Everybody in the nuclear industry is familiar with the erroneous conclusion that since power plants emit radiation it is dangerous. The problem is one of scale, or course. Exposure to radiation from a power plant is minuscule, but non-zero, and that gets mathematically challenged people up in arms.

In a similar vein, it is true that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes some global warming. Again, the problem is one of scale. Herein, we will discuss the relevant unassailable physical laws and delve into the numbers.

The Climate Constraint Equation cannot be used for predicting future climate; however, it provides a constraint on models. It cannot tell what will happen, but it does tell what cannot happen. Any model that results in an unbalanced equation is wrong, pure and simple.

Think of the cries of the anti-nuclear crowd that a fraction a millirad of radiation dose is dangerous. Now think of the decades-long daily drumbeat telling us that everything bad can be attributed to “climate change” and that you are responsible for destroying the planet. There are literally thousands of such claims and all of them are false.

When that time comes, and it will, the proponents of nuclear power who got on the “climate change” bandwagon to promote nuclear power at the expense of fossil-fuel power will be beset with claims that “YOU LIED TO US!” The nuclear industry is in no need of such opposition.

Eric Jelinski has engineering degrees in three disciplines, teaches nuclear engineering curriculum at the University of Toronto, had a full career with the nuclear power industry in Canada and was President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - Canada. In this short essay, he outlines a few simple steps to make large improvements in energy programs for North America. So simple, but national leaders haven't implemented them so far.

John Shanahan, Civil Engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Plentiful energy from fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear brought tremendous benefits to many countries in the last 120 years. Many other countries lack sufficient amounts of these essential energy sources, have ineffective or corrupt governments, weak economies and poor policies about the environment, nature, wilderness, and biodiversity. This article offers ideas about sound moderate government and respect for the environment.

Rob Jeffrey, Independent Economic Risk Consultant: South Africa is now (2018) in a recession, the fact is that South Africa does not have the financial resources to revitalise itself. The country suffers from a low savings rate and the government has no money to undertake the task of renewal and development itself. The only means to forge ahead is to make the country attractive to both domestic and foreign investment. Yet there are wild calls for expropriation without compensation, nationalisation of various industries, including one of the most damaging of the lot nationalising the SA reserve bank or using it as a pot of gold. These calls if they are implemented or gather in strength will drive South Africa into an economic death spiral similar to Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

One of South Africa’s key electricity technology energy advisors is a German renewable energy expert and supplier of German wind turbine equipment. Unbelievable. That highlights the desperate situation South African energy is in. German national energy programs based on wind and solar are only one natural crisis away from being in a disastrous situation.

Rob Jeffrey, Independent Economic Risk Consultant: The three major objectives of the country are poverty alleviation, reducing inequality and raising standards of living. These objectives can only be achieved by maintaining a high rate of economic growth, thereby reducing levels of unemployment and raising the standard of living. Electricity is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for economic growth. The necessary condition for sustainable economic growth is that there is a stable and secure supply of electricity at the lowest effective economic cost when delivered to the user. The sufficient condition requires that economic, social and political conditions must be put in place to foster and encourage domestic and foreign investment, thereby creating demand for productive and economically efficient industries.

Typical interglacials last on average 13,000 years. The virtual certainty of the IPCC that a glaciation is not possible for 50,000 years is not supported by the evidence.

Michael Crichton, M.D., writer, filmmaker: Having sold over 200 million books, he is one of the most prolific writers of the last two centuries. Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms; some comparisons between eugenics and man-made global warming.

Vijay Jayaraj, Climate Scientist, Contributor to Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation: Despite its many scientific and structural failings, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the world’s most influential, though not the most credible, source of policy on climate change. For over two decades, this has enabled it to persuade governments around the world to implement global climate policies that are harmful to nearly everyone in the developing world. The developing world requires massive amounts of reliable, affordable energy, especially electricity, for power-hungry industries and cities. Without it economic engines will stall causing a large-scale disruption of growth and development, trapping billions in poverty and pushing hundreds of millions back into it.

Don Bogard, research scientist and member of The Right Climate Stuff, TRCS, team, website: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/. This is a clearly written discussion of atmospheric sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. It explains the contributions of CO2 by activities of mankind (cement, land use, fossil fuels).

Douglas Lightfoot, Mechanical Engineer, Founder, Lightfoot Institute, http://www.thelightfootinstitute.ca: A new study by H. Douglas Lightfoot and Orval A. Mamer finds that the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on atmospheric temperature and climate is so small it is negligible. The study titled Back radiation versus carbon dioxide as the cause of climate change presents an original graph by the authors showing the concentration of water vapor plotted against back radiation. This is an important contribution to the discussion about CO2 because it allows an accurate comparison of the warming effect of water vapor with the known warming effect of CO2.

Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation and Nuclear Africa: The whole global warming and climate change social phenomenon going on around the world is an interesting occurrence in human psychology. It is a mixture of science; psychology; mysticism; politics; and group adherence. The challenge is to separate one from the other.

John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: This is a simple, short comparison of wind, solar, fossil fuels and nuclear power. Two have extremely low energy density, require lots of materials, maintenance and tremendous volume of new parts every 20 to 30 years. They are also variable to non-existent sometimes and cause havoc with electrical energy grids for modern society. The other two are high to very high energy density and require much less land. The 2009 - 2017 White House, its Science Advisor, John Holdren, and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton are strong proponents of wind and solar energy, want significant reductions in use of fossil fuels and did little to promote nuclear power for the future. Most of the rest of the elected officials in the White House and Congress from the mid 1970s through 2018 have done little to develop a national energy plan. There are programs for assisting Americans with health care and retirement, but no national energy plan, except to use what is the cheapest or what is popular with voters today.

Ronald Barmby, M.Sc. in Engineering with major in Geoscience, Author of 'Sunlight in Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria', Our planet has nót to be saved from CO2, but it has to be saved from the green ideology.

The book, Sunlight on Climate Change.. .. .." describes how expensive and doubtful strategies, adopted by governments to comply with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, have caused and will continue to cause increased human emissions of carbon dioxide, contribute to unhealthy air quality and significantly increase food costs for the very poor.

It explores why declarations of a climate emergency are based on a political agenda, not scientific facts, and invites the reader to reconsider this belief system in the light of science.

It’s easy for politicians and climate activists to vilify hydrocarbons, hype renewables, and talk about quitting coal. But economics matter. The U.S. and other countries aren’t going to suddenly quit using coal (or natural gas) to produce electricity because doing so would be too expensive. If policymakers are serious about decarbonizing the electric grid, they need to get serious about nuclear energy. And they need to do so now.

John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Barack Obama: Climate change is a straightforward issue. “We are seeing increases in the frequency and intensity of a wide variety of weather extremes, again, through mechanisms and in patterns that fit the fingerprint of the human influence on climate.” This belief has led Dr. Holdren, over the course of his career, to work to drive the nation’s shift toward clean energy policies and sustainable development, and boost cooperation with nations such as India and China on energy issues. That mainly meant using less energy, using a lot less fossil fuels, advocacy for wind and solar and hardly anything for nuclear. He sometimes rides a bicycle to work.