Those Terrible Coal Fired Power Plants

For John, BLUF:  In a move that seemed counter-intuitive, President Biden came out a couple of days ago and said coal fired power plants are going away, but withouot an apparent plan.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden says coal plants 'all across America' will be shut down, replaced with wind and solar

Here is the sub-headline:

Biden argued that it's 'cheaper' to generate electricity from wind and solar than it is from coal

From Fox Business, by Reporter Andrew Miller, 4 November 2022, 6:22pm EDT.

Here is the lede plus two:

President Biden said Friday that coal plants are too expensive to operate, and "we're going to be shutting these plants down all across America" in order to shift to wind power in a comment that drew criticism from the Republican National Committee.

"I was in Massachusetts about a month ago on the site of the largest old coal plant in America," Biden said at an event in Carlsbad, California, on Friday.  "Guess what?  It cost them too much money.  They can't count.  No one is building new coal plants because they can’t rely on it.  Even if they have all the coal guaranteed for the rest of the existence of the plant.

"So it's going to become a wind generation.  And all they're doing is it’s going to save them a hell of a lot of money and using the same transmission line that they transmitted the coal-fired electric on, we're going to be shutting these plants down all across America and having wind and solar power, also providing tax credits to help families buy energy efficient appliances, whether it's your refrigerator or your coffee maker, for solar panels on your home, weatherize your home, things that save an average, experts say, a minimum of $500 a year for the average family."

There are a number of views on the cost of wind and solar vs coal.  Here is an example from last year of someone saying coal is actually cheaper.  On the other hand, at about the same time The Guardian told us that solar and wind were coming in cheaper.  Some point to the subsidies provided by Governments to make renewable energy cheaper.

Reoorts show coal fired power plans are being closed, or will become more expensive than nearby renewable efforts, by four-fiths by 2025.  But, what about picking up the slack when thew wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.  Tht will be on hydropower or carbon or nuclear fueled power plants.

From a "Climate Change4" point of view it isn't just about the US and Europe.  China has recently approved 8.63 gigawatts (GW) of coal power just in the first three months of 2022.  China has pronmised to limit climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, but that is off in the future.

What is missing from President Biden's untimely proclamation was a time schedule.  When is this going to happen?  Will he still be President.

What is missing is a program to inform the voters of the United States as to the long term plan for providing consistent electric power across the fruited plain, withouot the use of carbon fuel.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Disaster Recycled

For John, BLUF:  Remember Chernobyl, back in 1986?  It seems it is back.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Chernobyl’s Blown Up Reactor 4 Just Woke Up

Here is the sub-headline:

Scientists don’t understand why

From History of Yesterday, by Historian Andrei Tapalaga, 17 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

The nuclear disaster that occurred in 1986 will forever be remembered, but the world will soon have a reminder of the event as the zone for some reason (yet unexplained by scientists)is becoming more radioactive.  For those who may not be aware of the incident here is an article to get you up to speed.

“Chernobyl will never be a problem”

Underneath reactor 4 there is still nuclear fuel that is active and which will take around 20,000 years for it to deplete.  The uranium is too radioactive for anyone to live in the city and since the incident, the European Union had created a shield around the reactor which should not allow for the radioactive rays to come out.

Yes, Chernobyl is a long ways away, in Ukraine, but with the jet stream it's potential radiation may be only hours away for the rest of the world.  The interest thing is, with all the monitoring, the experts, the scientists, don't know what is causing this issue of increased radiation.

For a second source, we have "Nuclear reactions are increasing in an inaccessible chamber at Chernobyl", from CNET, by Mr Steph Panecasio, 11 May 2021, 6:07 p.m. PT.

Radioactive emissions in an inaccessible chamber within the Chernobyl nuclear power plant have spiked in the last four years, leading scientists to question how serious the threat of a runaway nuclear fission reaction really is.

The 1986 Chernobyl explosion -- which resulted in catastrophic destruction and significant loss of life -- sealed off a number of areas and chambers in the Ukrainian power plant, including subreactor room 305/2, which is now the site of the surge. The room is thought to contain a large amount of highly radioactive material.

Good luck to us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Cancel "Cancel Culture"

For John, BLUF:  This is a month old, but still timely.  The Writer thinks "the phrase cancel culture is too vague — a distraction from a deeper examination of power in society.".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why ‘Cancel Culture’ Is a Distraction

Here is the sub-headline:

A reporter’s last thoughts before putting the phrase to rest.

From The New York Times, by Reporter Jonah Engel Bromwich, 14 August 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

I made a promise to myself. Having had the privilege of appearing on “The Daily,” and having used that privilege to discuss “cancel culture” over the course of not one, but two episodes, I would not write about the phrase ever again.

Then I got an email from a colleague who kindly asked me if I would write this newsletter.

If you listened to the episodes, you know that I started thinking about the phrase “cancel culture” in 2018. That year, the word “canceled,” which had originally circulated as a joke on Black Twitter, began to be used more widely to describe a dynamic frequently playing out on social media. A person would say or do something that was offensive to others, and those people would call out the offender.

Lisa Nakamura, a professor I talked to then, called it a “cultural boycott” — an agreement not to amplify, signal-boost or give money to the person who’s been canceled. In some cases, as the phenomenon developed, “cancellation” could turn punitive, even causing some offenders to be fired from their jobs.

People tend to see cancellation as either wholly good — there are new consequences for saying or doing racist, bigoted or otherwise untenable things — or wholly bad, in that people can lose their reputations and in some cases their jobs, all because a mob has taken undue offense to a clumsy or out-of-context remark. Personally, I think it’s best viewed not as either positive or negative, but as something else: a new development in the way that power works — a development brought about by social media.

I take the Writer's point.  For someone to be fired because of a tweet storm seems a little unfair.  And the actions suggest a "Zero Defects" approach to life.  Sadly, we are dealing with humans and there are always defects, mistakes.  Defects can be reducted by having people pay more attention to what they are doing.  We should work on that.  But, we need a little humanity and humility.

Pointing out mistakes, errors, slips, is fine.  However, it should not automatically trip the guillotine.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Computers Contributing to Global Warming

For John, BLUF:  I am not surprised at the revelation about the energy costs of computerization.  Remember the 2007 Bruce Willis movie Live Free or Die Hard?  One of the clues is that the computer be hacked is using a lot of energy, standing out from the background.  And it isn't just the computer.  There is the energy needed to provide the cooling needed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Old Energy, New Boom

Here is the sub-headline:

Digital traffic will fuel the next dramatic economic expansion—but digital machines need the reliable and affordable energy that only hydrocarbons can provide.

Mark P. Mills January 24, 2020 Technology and InnovationInfrastructure and energyEconomy, finance, and budgets.

Here is the lede plus three:

Once upon a time, tech companies were upstarts, striving to change the world order.  Not anymore.  With financial potentates gathering in Davos this week for the 2020 World Economic Forum, tech giants reign in the global economy, both creating and ameliorating challenges from job destruction and wealth disparities to security, health care, and—of course—climate change.

Digital companies now “weaponize” their reputations for technological wizardry to shape our energy future.  It’s ironic, then, but no coincidence, that digital infrastructure has become the fastest-growing source of energy use.  Despite their best public relations efforts, these giants in fact meet increasing demand by using the same old hydrocarbon sources that power everything else in the economy.

Tech companies confront an inconvenient fact:  the global cloud uses more energy than is produced by all the planet’s wind and solar farms combined.  One-click shopping and streaming video, and everything else digital, rely on an ecosystem of energy-intensive hardware to mine rare-earth elements, manufacture silicon engines, and light up countless cell towers and warehouse-scale data centers.  This hardware is deeply and deliberately intertwined in global systems overwhelmingly fueled by hydrocarbons—the old-fashioned stuff that provides 85 percent of all energy, with just 3 percent coming from wind and solar.

Just ahead of the Davos meeting, Microsoft raised the bar for its fellow tech titans by announcing an initiative to help change how the world gets energy. Nearly every tech firm has “taken the pledge” to transition to using renewable energy exclusively.  They’re investing billions of dollars and deploying lobbyists to get more wind and solar projects going worldwide.  U.S. companies fund about half of Europe’s green tech, and these firms make sure to publicize these as “offsets” for domestic operations—in effect, purchased indulgences.  None of it changes the reality that data machines physically connect to conventional, local grids and pipes.

Maybe when everyone telecommutes we will find the energy savings.  In the mean time, computing is a big energy sink.

Like much we hear about, we could benefit from more information and less speculation.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Executive Orders

For John, BLUF:  It is usually interesting to examine the back story on any assertion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Executive order

On the City Life Show Friday I was challenged by one of the co-hosts a to the fact that President Trump was running the nation by Executive Orders.  I immediately flashed on President Barack Obama and his infamous quote that "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone".

Here is the Wikipedia entry, first three paragraphs:

In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.  The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources.  Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch.  The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.  Some policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.  As the head of state and head of government of the United States, as well as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, only the president of the United States can issue an executive order.

Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their own terms.  At any time, the president may revoke, modify, or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor.  Typically, a new president reviews enforced executive orders in the first few weeks in office.

President Obama issued 276 during his eight years in office.

President Trump has issued 138 Executive Orders so far in a little over years.♠

Here is a partial list of Presidential Executive Orders:

PRESIDENT	EOs	Terms
John F. Kennedy	214	<1
Lyndon B. Johnson	325	1+
Richard Nixon	346	1+
Gerald R. Ford	169	<1
Jimmy Carter	320	1
Ronald Reagan	381	2
George H. W. Bush	166	1
Bill Clinton	308	2
George W. Bush	291	2
Barack Obama	276	2
Donald Trump	140	<1

It appears that President Trump is on track to issue a few more Executive Orders than President Obama, but not out of line with other Presidents.

I guess we could do a year by year trend analysis, but only if someone writes a comment asking for it.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  One Wikipedia page says 138 and one says 140.  We just can't seem to get a consensus on President Trump. (LOL)

Matt Lauer Did It

For John, BLUF:  There is almost no limit to whom the supporters of Ms Clinton will assign blame.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election

From Opinionator Jill Filipovic, in The Old Gray Lady, 1 December 2017.

Ms Filipovic focuses on Mssers Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose and Mark Halperi, as well as her former Old Gray Lady colleague, Reporter Glenn Thrush.

Here is an Excerpt:

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable.  These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status.

A month ago, Rebecca Traister wrote in New York magazine that with the flood of sexual harassment charges, “we see that the men who have had the power to abuse women’s bodies and psyches throughout their careers are in many cases also the ones in charge of our political and cultural stories.”  With the Lauer accusations, this observation has come into sharper focus on one particular picture: the media sexism that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss.

The 2016 presidential race was so close that any of a half-dozen factors surely influenced the outcome:  James Comey, racial politics, Clinton family baggage, the contentious Democratic primary, third-party spoilers, Russian interference, fake news.  But when one of the best-qualified candidates for the presidency in American history and the first woman to get close to the Oval Office loses to an opponent who had not dedicated a nanosecond of his life to public service and ran a blatantly misogynist campaign, it’s hard to conclude that gender didn’t play a role.

I'm not buying it.

As for not a "nanosecond of" Mr Trump's life to public service, he is the one who made the rebuild of the NYC Ice Skating Pond happen.  Writers should avoid hyperbole whenever possible.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff