Review: Don’t Waste Time Or Money On ‘Silent Earth’

Published on October 15, 2021Written by PA Pundits International

Book reviews usually tell people, buy this new hardback. This article advises, don’t bother reading Silent Earth, much less purchasing a copy; it’s mostly a junk-science, anti-technology screed.

Dave Goulson’s book expands on Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s polemic against pesticides that helped rid Europe and the USA of deadly malaria, and now protect crops that require so much land, water, work, fertilizer and energy to grow and harvest that we dare not sacrifice them to hordes of hungry insects.
Carson falsely blamed DDT for her cancer – and launched the practice of using conjecture, poetic prose, hyperbole and even fraud, instead of evidence-based science, to advance environmentalist agendas. The Environmental Defense Fund used her book to drive its campaign to ban DDT and give environmentalists “a level of authority they never had before.”
The EPA ban led to the deaths of millions of Africans and Asians from malaria, which could have been reduced dramatically by using this powerful spatial repellant in conjunction with modern insecticides and anti-malarial drugs. (See here, here, here and here.)
Relying mostly on inventive speculation, Goulson claims a silent spring devoid of chirping birds could soon become a silent planet devoid of insects that pollinate flowers and crops, and feed birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and (if former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has his way) billions of us humans.
It would take another book to address all the new book’s errors and problems, but here are a few.
Goulson transforms the supposed “bee-pocalypse” of a few years ago into a global apocalypse for all insects, and potentially all life on Earth. He blames modern agriculture, “greedy corporations,” free-market/personal-choice capitalism, too many humans who eat too much and live too well, urban light pollution and o course manmade climate change. Above all, he blames modern synthetic pesticides, though he does recognize that many “natural” “organic” chemicals are toxic to insects, wildlife and even humans.
Honeybee populations have been on a happy rebound for several years now, after being hit hard by Varroa destructor mites, Nosema, and other bee parasites and diseases. They were also harmed by beekeepers who tried to address these problems, but sometimes misused or overused mitacides. US Department of Agriculture surveys now show there are now over 150,000 more beehives than in 1995.
Studies in actual farmers’ fields have consistently shown no adverse effects on honeybees at the colony level from realistic exposures to neonicotinoid insecticides, one of Goulson’s primary scapegoats. In fact, bees thrive in and around neonic-treated canola, corn and other crops in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. As to wild bees, 98% don’t even pollinate agricultural crops – and the species that do are thriving, even though they have the greatest contact with neonics. That shouldn’t be surprising.
Neonicotinoids are used primarily to coat seeds. They are systemic pesticides that become part of the plant tissue and target only pests that actually feed on the crops, particularly during early growth stages. Sulfloxaflor is similar in that regard. Both are far safer for general insect populations than older pesticides or organic farming chemicals that are applied by air, hand or truck across entire fields – and often beyond.
Goulson ignores all this and advances his central claim that populations of all insects are in precipitous decline globally. He bases that largely on a 2017 study by him and several colleagues. They assert that insect populations plummeted by over 75% during a 25-year period in several German nature reserves – then extrapolate that and a few other studies to the entire planet.
But their study didn’t track the same areas from year to year and employed traps that capture insects only while they’re flying. That misses non-flying insects and is heavily dependent on rainfall and other weather.
There’s simply no reliable evidence of a general insect decline. Indeed, some 900,000 insect species have been identified around the world, though total estimates range from 2 million to 30 million species. That and extremely limited monitoring programs make it impossible to calculate global insect population trends. Moreover, an extensive insect population study published in 2020 found no overall decline in North America, with declines in some US areas offset by increases elsewhere. The verdict is still out.
Goulson also claims modern pesticides are vastly more toxic than their predecessors. However, an Agriculture Department analysis concluded that, between 1968 and 2008, overall US pesticide toxicity plunged by 98% – while the amount of pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) applied per acre declined by 60% and pesticide persistence in soils and waters was cut in half, as farmers used different, better, more-targeted pesticides more carefully and judiciously, and employed other measures to control pests.
He pillories glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, claiming the chemical is harmful to bees, has been linked to other insect and even bird declines, and causes cancer in humans. For evidence he cites the International Agency on Research and Cancer.
But as I explain in a medical journal paper, IARC has strong ties to American trial lawyers who have filed multiple lawsuits over glyphosate – and the agency’s claims have been roundly contradicted by a decades-long US National Cancer Institute Agricultural Health Study – and by more than 3,300 studies around the world that support glyphosate safety. Reliance on IARC puts Goulson on very thin ice.
He’s against synthetic fertilizers (and more CO2) that help us grow far more food from much less land – because they can allegedly reduce floral diversity, make other plants less palatable for insects, pollute aquatic systems and contribute to climate change. He wants children to learn more about ecology and nature in school (presumably only his lesson plans) – and applauds the UK’s Extinction Rebellion lunatics.
These errors, omissions, exaggerations, falsifications and biases shouldn’t be surprising. A widely published biology professor, Goulson is also a trustee for Pesticide Action Network, an ideologically driven anti-pesticide organization.
Goulson’s proffered solutions to his imagined insect Armageddon are equally fanciful. While acknowledging that organic farming uses nasty chemicals and produces 80-90 percent lower yields than conventional modern agriculture, he wants still more organic farms – even though plowing billions more acres for the same overall crop yields would have horrific impacts on insects and wildlife.
With millions of jobs disappearing, he says the newly unemployed could work on organic farms, in backyard plots and in urban community gardens (doing stoop labor, pulling weeds and picking bugs off vegetables). Ruling elites wouldn’t do such work, of course, but we commoners should.
Amid his concerns about climate change, the author likewise ignores how industrial-scale wind turbines would splatter birds and insects, solar panels would obliterate habitats, and converting forests into wood pellets for “biofuel” electricity generation would destroy still more habitats. Mining and processing for Green New Deal metals and minerals would drastically harm people, insects and planet.
Ultimately, Goulson concludes, we need fewer people, who eat less and “switch to a predominantly vegetable diet, supplemented by small amounts of sustainably-harvested fish and grass-fed meat” (and bugs). Ruling elites once again likely exempted.
It all looks lie part of the Green warriors’ mission to stamp out prosperity as we know it.
Silent Earth will undoubtedly get rave reviews from environmentalists, leftist journalists, Big Tech, teachers unions, and the rest of the Cancel Culture. The insanity will get foisted on our children. Parents and policymakers should be wary.
See more here: papundits.wordpress.com
Header image: Amazon
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

German Court Orders Youtube to Reinstate Censored Anti-COVID Videos

Published on October 15, 2021Written by notrickszone.com

There is outrage over YouTube censorship of Corona and government-critical videos made by dozens of leading German actors.

Dozens of prominent German actors have banded together as part of the “allesaufdentisch” (everything on the table) freedom of expression campaign to demand a more open discussion on the Corona virus and the controversial government policies, rules and regulations. Their statements were posted in the form of short videos on YouTube.
In the recent months, views critical of government Corona policies and vaccines have been suppressed by the major media.
“Increasing concern” over political actions
At their allesaufdentisch site, the group of leading actors, performers, artists state: “We are watching the development of political action in the Corona crisis with increasing concern. Many experts have not yet been heard in the public Corona debate. We would like to see a wide-ranging, fact-based, open and factual discourse and also an equally wide-ranging discussion of the videos.”
Each actor posted a YouTube video criticizing the current suppressive policies. See background here.
YouTube takes down critical videos, citing “totally vague” reasons
Not surprisingly, YouTube has since moved and taken down some of the videos, citing totally vague reasons such as “violating community guidelines.”
Yesterday German national leading daily Bild below reported on YouTube’s controversial removal of the videos.
According to the Bild journalist Filipp Piatov, three of the “allesaufdentisch” videos had been removed by YouTube. This immediately sparked an outcry on overzealous limits on freedom of expression.
No specific reasons
On why YouTube blocked the videos, Piatov comments the reasons provided by YouTube were “totally abstract” and “vague”: “I asked YouTube yesterday, and asked them for clarity and what is concretely the violation. And so far there’s been no reply,” said Piatov. “The artists don’t know why these videos were removed. We’re talking about them being bluntly silenced.”
New dimension of legal violation by YouTube
The group of actors and actresses have hired high profile Hamburg attorney Joachim Steinhoefel, who tweeted his reaction to YouTube’s removal of the film and failing to cite specific reasons for the move. In his tweet, Steinhöfel calls YouTube’s move “the sad opposite” of democracy and that he sees “a new dimension of legal violation by YouTube”.
What’s especially upsetting is that some of the videos taken down were interviews with leading experts, who legitimately pointed out recent, gross errors made by the government institutes. “Harmless videos that were simply deleted,” Bild’s Piatov notes.
False facts no grounds for removing videos
When asked if the videos indeed contained controversial content justifying removal, Piatov said there was none, adding “A false fact is not reason for a deletion.” Otherwise, many video statements made by government authorities would need to be taken down as well.
“YouTube is not a factchecking platform, not a Truth Commission that gets to decide what’s right and what’s wrong,” said Piatov. “Who is YouTube? Is it a University? Is it a panel of virologists who sit and watch all these videos and say this one, from the 100 million that got uploaded, we’re going to delete?”
Court rules against YouTube
The latest reports is that prominent Hamburg Internet media attorney Joachim Steinhoefel, representing the group of actors, has since convinced a German court to order YouTube to reinstate the removed videos. More on that tomorrow.
See more here: notrickszone.com
Editor’s note: You can bet YouTube will ignore the court ruling, and refuse to reinstate the deleted videos.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

The Origin of Greta Thunberg’s ‘200 species extinctions per day’

Published on October 15, 2021Written by deepdots.substack.com

200 extinct species per day didn’t ring true to me so I looked into it starting in May, 2020, ready to accept the narrative.

If they were not telling such outrageous lies they would have fewer opponents. I want her to do well, so Greta, if you will issue a public apology for having believed that false notion of 200 species per day and then switch to talking about the 32,000+ threatened species in coordination with IUCN to help motivate people to get moving toward protecting them, I will modify this page. Living species are what matter, more than your imaginary 200 that didn’t go extinct yesterday nor any day.
Partial truth. Collapsing why? Because we are burning forests to grow palm oil for the extra 1,643,040 new consumers on earth each week for example, not CO2. You’re correct that we can’t have eternal economic growth like this but you think plant food helping to keep everybody fed (so far) is the villain. CO2 is crop fertilizer. You, Greta, are pushing your fairy tale of 200 species per day supposedly going extinct due to CO2 and climate. First of all, call it 2 per year on average, not 73,000 and the villain is human expansion as we are breeding like rabbits, detail below.
Highlights Summary
After Dec 2020, I can find only 18 species actually declared extinct during all of 2020, 15 freshwater fish species in Lake Lanao because some genius threw in bigger fish that ate their babies (along with overfishing), plus 3 frogs near Panama due to chytridiomycosis (according to IUCN), a fungus beginning 1994. The lake is a combat zone by the way. On earth there are no extinctions from CO2, warming, climate change or even extreme weather.
The real causes of extinctions are pollution, overhunting, destruction of habitats and so on. It is miraculous that the real extinction numbers are actually under 2 per year the way humanity is expanding.
Key Points
Greta Thunberg: 200/day = 73,000/yr (Adam Rogers, 1995, no science behind it, only bogus model rumors, prove me wrong by producing a model and the data)
2021 IUCN reports only 18 actual extinctions during 2020. A page title says 31 but read it carefully as 13 of those are not actually extinct. In serious trouble thanks to us, yes, and that’s terrible, but not extinct, what’s almost extinct is truth-telling
2020 Over 130,000 web pages repeating the 200/day claim and blaming it on climate
2009 Only 1.7/yr (IUCN, 16,000 scientists and experts assessing species worldwide)
1988 Edward O. Wilson: Up to 50% extinct by year 2000
Four of Greta’s species claims on video queued to the spot …
2020 Oct, #NatureNow
“up to 200 species are going extinct every single day”
[embedded content]
2019 Oct, Extinction Rebellion protest
“about 200 species going extinct every single day”
[embedded content]
2019 Apr, Speech to EU leaders
“up to 200 species becoming extinct every single day”
[embedded content]
2018 Dec, TEDx
“up to 200 species going extinct every single day”
[embedded content]
Species Claims Timeline
Reverse chronological order
2021 IUCN reports only 18 actual extinctions during all of 2020.
2021 Over 130,000 web pages parrot Greta’s false claim of 200 extinct per day supposedly from climate.
2009, IUCN, WILDLIFE IN A CHANGING WORLD, An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (PDF)
… “869 recorded extinctions” … “since the year 1500”
… That’s 1.7 extinct species per YEAR. < < < < < < < < < < < < <

Canada: Epidemiology Expert Trashes Lockdowns & COVID Shots for Kids

Published on October 15, 2021Written by rebelnews.com

Dr. Paul Alexander advocates for a complete change over of pandemic responders; to fire those who have failed us, stop shifting the blame to the public who have done their part, and elect qualified experts.

In this interview, I bring you a highly qualified, well-versed expert in the field of epidemiology, evidence-based medicine and research methodology,.Dr. Paul Elias Alexander.
Dr. Alexander has a lengthy resume. Some of his previous employers include Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, where he worked for 12 years as an epidemiologist.
Some of Dr. Alexander’s other credentials: include spending a few years at the Infectious Diseases Society of America; working with the World Health Organization as Europe’s regional specialist/epidemiologist in Denmark; serving as COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, D.C.
That experience helped land him the role of senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services for the Trump administration.
He is considered one of the top global research methodologists because of his training under Dr. Gordon Guyatt, to name one of many, and for his work establishing the GRADE approach — that is, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation — developed to address the shortcomings of grading systems in health care and uphold high standards of evidence-based recommendations and guidelines.
Dr. Alexander and I discuss the COVID-19 injection roll out being pushed heavily for children aged 5-11, the catastrophic harms that government-imposed pandemic responses have caused and touch on one of his recent opinion pieces, Twenty Steps to End the Madness.
He advocates for a complete change over of pandemic responders; to fire those who have failed us, stop shifting the blame to the public who have done their part, and elect qualified experts.
See more here: rebelnews.com
Header image: American Institute for Economic Research
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

Workers at Spain’s Meteorological Agency Confess to Spraying Chemtrails

Published on October 15, 2021Written by stateofthenation.co

Four workers from the State Meteorological Agency confessed that planes are spreading lead dioxide, silver iodide and diatomite throughout Spain

That of Spain was the first Western government to officially include the word ‘chemtrail’ in its Official Gazette.
The Spanish Ministry of Health authorized the NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) units of the Armed Forces and also the UME to use biocides from the air. A month after the state of alarm was imposed, the Executive justified in the BOE that this technique is one of the “most effective” against the coronavirus since with “nebulization, thermal fogging and micronebulization techniques, all surfaces with speed”.
The Executive also justified that the aforementioned units “have the personal means, materials, procedures and sufficient training to carry out air disinfection, since they are operations that they carry out regularly, with the exception that instead of using biocidal products they do so with other decontaminating chemicals ”.
On May 19, 2015, MEP Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) announced in the European Parliament that four workers from the State Meteorological Agency had confessed that Spain is being sprayed entirely from planes that spread lead dioxide through the atmosphere, silver iodide and diatomite.
The objective, according to the same MEP, would be to ward off the rains and allow temperatures to rise, which creates a summery climatic environment for tourism and, at the same time, helps corporations in the agricultural sector.
This, in turn, is producing cold drops of great intensity.
The Region of Murcia, the Valencian Community and the province of Almería are being the most affected, to the point that not a drop of rainwater falls in more than seven months, catastrophic cold drops are generated, and they are caused respiratory diseases to the population by inhaling lead dioxide and other toxic compounds.
The San Javier military airport in Murcia is being used for the take-off of these planes.
The original Spanish article is here: alertadigital.com
Tremosa asked the European Commission to take a position on the matter.
WHAT IS A CHEMTRAIL’?
Chemtrails are chemostellae or chemtrails that can be seen in the sky.
Many people have believed that these long-lasting contrails left by airplanes at high altitudes are actually “chemtrails” consisting of chemical or biological agents sprayed by airplanes for undisclosed purposes to citizens.
The purpose of the chemical release could be solar radiation management, weather modification, psychological manipulation, human population control, or biological or chemical warfare.
The stelae are also claimed to cause respiratory illnesses and other health problems.
See more here: stateofthenation.co
Header image: Newschannel 6 Now
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

Woman Denied Kidney Transplant Because She and Donor Are Unvaxxed

Published on October 15, 2021Written by breitbart.com

A Colorado woman in dire need of a new kidney has been denied a transplant at UCHealth because she and her donor have not received a coronavirus vaccination.

Leilani Lutali is suffering from stage five renal failure and met a willing donor in Jamiee Fougner at a bible study ten months ago, CBS 4 reports. Though the women wish to go through with the operation, they have run into issues regarding UCHealth’s coronavirus vaccination policy.
“At the end of August, they confirmed that there was no COVID shot needed at that time,” Lutali told CBS 4. “Fast forward to Sept. 28. That’s when I found out. Jamiee learned they have this policy around the COVID shot for both for the donor and the recipient.”
Fougner has not received the vaccine citing religious beliefs, per CBS 4. At the same time, Lutali believes there are too many unknowns regarding the vaccine, and also informed CBS 4 that she had the virus and has earned natural immunity.
CBS 4 reports Lutali received a letter from UCHealth explaining that she would require a vaccine to go through with the procedure at the University of Colorado Hospital:
The transplant team at University of Colorado Hospital has determined that it is necessary to place you inactive on the waiting list. You will be inactivated on the list for non-compliance by not receiving the COVID vaccine. You will have 30 days to begin the vaccination series. If your decision is to refuse COVID vaccination you will be removed from the kidney transplant list. You will continue to accrue waiting time, but you will not receive a kidney offer while listed inactive. Once you complete the COVID vaccination series you will be reactivated on the kidney transplant list pending any other changes in your health condition.
“I said I’ll sign a medical waiver. I have to sign a waiver anyway for the transplant itself, releasing them from anything that could possibly go wrong,” Lutali told CBS 4. “It’s surgery, it’s invasive. I sign a waiver for my life. I’m not sure why I can’t sign a waiver for the COVID shot.”
“I feel coerced,” Lutali stated, according to Denver7 sister station KOAA. “I feel like my life is being held in their hands in exchange for a shot, and the attitude is ‘just take the shot.‘”
Fougner echoed Lutali’s sentiments.
“Here I am, willing to be a direct donor to her. It does not affect any other patient on the transplant list,” Fougner said to CBS 4. “How can I sit here and allow them to murder my friend when I’ve got a perfectly good kidney and can save her life?”
UCHealth provided Denver7 with a statement on the issue that cited the mortality rate among transplant patients:
Patients who have received a transplanted organ are at significant risk from COVID-19. Should they become infected, they are at particularly high risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death. Studies have found transplant patients who contract COVID-19 may have a mortality rate of 20 percent or higher. A living donor could pass COVID-19 infection on to an organ recipient even if they initially test negative for the disease, putting the patient’s life at risk.

In a Facebook live video, Tim Geitner, Republican state Rep. of El Paso County in Colorado said, “the understanding is basically, conform to this demand. Take this COVID vaccine, or otherwise, you will be denied a life-saving procedure, and best of luck.”
“I’ve had the opportunity to talk with UCHealth directly, by phone, by email, and they refuse to make exceptions or accommodations to their policy,” Rep. Geitner added in his Facebook video.
The women are desperately trying to find a hospital that will allow the surgery without vaccination requirements and have been unsuccessful in Colorado, according to CBS 4. The two are now looking at hospitals in other states, the outlet reports.
See more here: breitbart.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

Instagram Bans Science Proving Men Are Physically Stronger Than Women

Published on October 15, 2021Written by infowars.com

Facebook owned Instagram has censored Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright after he posted a chart that proves men are biologically stronger than women in a range of sports, even if they have undergone gender transitioning treatment.

Instagram removed Wright’s post which contained a chart from a scientific study titled Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage.
The peer-reviewed study was published in the journal Medicine & Sports, which has been in wide circulation since 1969.
The study by researchers at the University of Manchester in the UK and Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm found that biological males categorically have performance advantages over biological females across sports that are contested in the Olympics.
Wright also noted that he wasn’t able to appeal the censorship, despite Instagram claiming he could do so.
The study, one of several to conclude the same thing, found that the use of typical testosterone suppression methods doesn’t diminish the performance advantage that exists between biological men and women by a significant amount.
The study, which was published before the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, also found that even after three years of hormone therapy, transgender women on average still retain strength advantages over biological women.
However, as far as big tech is concerned, on this occasion the science is ‘hate speech’.
See more here: infowars.com
Header image: Business News
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

Solar Roads – Another Epic Fail of Green Stupidity

Published on October 15, 2021Written by stopthesethings.com

Whatever happened to solar roadways? A few years back, embedding PV cells into road surfaces was going to be the next big thing. And then, all of a sudden, it wasn’t.

True it is, that the wind and solar cult attracts all sorts of cranks and crackpots, promoting all sorts of harebrained schemes and subsidy-backed scams. But, as Sarah Marquart explains below, there were a host of reasons why this one would never roll.
Understanding Solar Roadways: An Engineering Failure of Epic ProportionsInteresting EngineeringSarah Marquart4 March 2021
Remember Solar Roadways? As a fresh reminder, Solar Roadways became massively viral in 2014 after claiming to be the end-all solution to the global energy crisis. The idea was simple: to implant solar panels into roads to produce electricity. The panels were allegedly also going to light up the roads with different LED patterns, replacing painted lines. For the winter, heating coils could melt snow and ice – all while generating electricity and requiring less maintenance.
The promise seemed too good to be true. And as it turns out, it was.
After years of development and millions of dollars (including government funding), none of the solar roadways installed today are cost-effective or efficient energy producers. The roads are expensive and produce far less electricity than what could be produced if the money was used on a solar farm – or by simply placing the panels by the side of the road.
As it turns out, there were many, many obstacles when it comes to turning roads into giant solar panels.
An engineering failure
With the global road network spanning between 21 and 32 million kilometers (13 and 19.8 million miles), it seems reasonable that covering just a portion of them with solar panels could generate a substantial amount of electricity. Placing solar panels on a mere fraction of roadways, in theory, should generate energy enough to power the entire world. However, this is only achievable under the best of conditions – when the solar panels are in direct sunlight.
The largest incentive of the project was its ability to pay for itself and give a good return on investment (ROI). Though as of yet, no solar roadway has sustained a positivecash-flow. Instead, the projects have caused a slew of problems and required extensive maintenance. Although the technology has been in development for years, the idea is not yet viable.
Not enough light
On a traditional solar farm, solar panels are angled towards the sun to maximize efficiency. On more advanced farms, the panels are made to track the sun, further improving the amount of energy they can extract. A typical solar panel can utilize about 20 percent of the energy that the sun produces. Optimizing the amount of light the panels are exposed to is imperative to run a cost-efficient system.
On the other hand, solar roadways that lay flat minimize the panels’ exposure to direct sunlight, when the panels are most efficient. Laying a solar panel flat result will result in 60 percent powerless power, in comparison to direct sunlight. The already small amount of energy that is available is further restricted by the environment around it.
Flat panels are also going to be more prone to shading, even when they are not being driven over. Shade over just 5 percent of the surface of a panel can reduce power generation by 50 percent. The panels are also likely to be covered by dirt and dust and would need far thicker glass than conventional panels to withstand the weight of traffic, which will further limit the light they absorb.
On top of this, panels that are fixed in place are unable to benefit from air circulation and will likely heat up more than rooftop solar panels, making them less efficient. For every 1 degree Celsius (33 degrees fahrenheit) over optimum temperature, solar panel lose around 0.5 percent of energy efficiency.
In the best of conditions, the panels are at a disadvantage, without the consideration of the constant wear and tear that they will be exposed to for their entire lifespan.
One of the features Solar Roadways promised was the inclusion of LEDs that would replace the necessity to paint lines on roads. However, a critical balance must be met by making the lights visible, yet not drawing too much power.
With current LEDs, the power consumption is still too high and the lights burn out too fast to make the lighting economically viable. LEDs used in traffic lights use shielding to block out direct sunlight and make the lights appear brighter. On the solar roadway, the lights would be difficult to shield, making them much more difficult to see during the day. At night, they would be easily visible, but this also causes a problem: with no power being produced at night, the lights would be drawing electricity directly out of the grid.
The Solar Roadways team installed a small, 13.9 m² section of solar road in Sandpoint, Idaho in 2017, but the results were rather unimpressive. Unfortunately, the small section of solar panels broke almost immediately, and then caught fire sometime later. Also, the lights could hardly be seen, at even direct angles to the road. The panels did receive an upgrade, but the lights were still incredibly difficult to see without being at a high angle, the opposite of the angles drivers would view them at.
The properties of the glass itself further restrict the road’s ability to produce electricity. Dirt and leaves will accumulate on the surface and will act as an abrasive material that will scratch and wear the road quickly, and the glass fragments may cause additional wear and tear to the cars that use the road.
Advanced polymers were considered for use in constructing the roads, to protect the panels. However, most polymers are expensive to manufacture in sufficient quantities to build a road capable of withstanding the constant force of traffic. The material is also typically made from fossil fuels, defeating the purpose of using solar panels to reduce the carbon footprint.
As the panels wear out, the glass material will become opaque. The clarity of the glass would significantly degrade the panels’ ability to collect light. The challenge is mounting. The cost of implementing the system could never exceed the efficiency and practicality of simply installing the solar panels in far more efficient arrangements.
The idea of replacing asphalt with a glass panel is even more absurd once the cost is considered. Currently, there is no coating available that can withstand the force of moving vehicles yet produce electricity at the same time.
It is absurdly expensive
Solar Roadways claims that covering the southern 48 US state roads with solar roads (about 6 billion square meters) would produce three times more electricity than the annual power consumption of the United States. However, this not only assumes the roads would work as advertised, but also does not factor in the cost of such an astronomical project.
For the demonstration project in Idaho, the panels had an installed capacity of 1.529 KW with an installation cost of $48,734, which implies a cost per installed kW of around $33,000, about 20 times higher than for a solar power plant. Solar Roadway estimates that the LED lights would consume 106 MWh per lane mile, with the panels generating 415 MWh – so more than 25 percent of the useful power would be consumed by the LEDs. The heating plates would draw 2.28 MW per lane mile, which means that running them for just six days would cancel out any net gain from the solar panels.
The idea is fun to imagine. However, with the materials available today, it is not quite feasible. Significantly more research is required to develop a viable solution. Although, it may be a better idea to tailor the placement of the panels and put them in places where they can be in direct sunlight. In fact, buildings cover a lot more space than roads. So, covering just a fraction of existing rooftops with solar panels would immediately yield more power than putting them on roads, and the technology already works.
It would also be significantly more efficient to run the solar panels alongside the road where they are not subject to harsh conditions, are easier to maintain, and are much more economical. Furthermore, the panels could be angled or made to track the sun, maximizing the power that is available to them.
What progress has been made
So far, a few solar projects have been installed around the world. Some of them work better than others, but as a whole, they do not generate much electricity- far less than what could be expected if the money that funded the project was used on traditional solar farms.
In December 2016, France unveiled a 1-kilometer (0,5 mile) solar road made out of approximately 2,880 m2 (31,000 ft2) of photovoltaic panels. Built using Colas’ Wattway technology, it was the longest solar road in the world. The road, which cost around $5.2 million, was meant to generate enough electricity to power the streetlights in a nearby town. However, that never happened.
By 2018, the road was already deteriorating, and 90 meters (295 feet) of it had to be demolished. Rotting leaves sitting on the road, cracks in the panels and a lack of sun in the region made it far less efficient than anticipated – at its peak it produced just 80,000 kWh a year (much less than the expected 150,000 kWh). Further, the road was noisy to drive on and was frequented by tractors, which increased the wear and tear on the road.
This was so bad that officials had to change the maximum speed limit to 70km/h (43 mph). In 2019, WattWay admitted that it was the end of the line for their road and the project would not be moving ahead.
After the installation in France, a test stretch of roadway was installed near the Alabama/Georgia border in the United States. In December 2020, Peachtree, Georgia officially unveiled the United States’ first solar roadway. The installation is meant to produce more than 1,300 kWh of energy annually that will be used to charge local electric vehicles. Because the roadway is fairly new, there isn’t much information available regarding its durability.
However, because it was made using the same technology as the French road, one could assume that it will likely begin to deteriorate within a few years.
Another promising installation was the Jinan solar highway in China. Engineers claimed the 1-km (0,6 mile) test road would be able to produce an impressive gigawatt of energy a year, and power as many as 800 homes. The road itself consisted of three distinct layers developed by the Qilu Transportation Development Group. The first layer was insulation, then the solar panel, and finally a transparent concrete top layer.
Yet, just five days after the road opened in 2017, one six-foot panel went missing, and the surrounding panels were damaged – allegedly by a professional team of thieves.
Improving science
Technological advances are being made all the time. Modern humanity thrives on innovation. Though there are many great ideas, solar roadways designed for cars are probably not one of them.
The design is far too expensive, unreliable, and does not work. With the technology available today it is not feasible to design such a project. Instead of using the time and money to develop impractical science projects, real advances could be made like funding functional solar farms that are proven to work.
Perhaps in the future, there will be a material that can withstand the stresses of traffic and can produce electricity. That time, however, is not now. The idea is incredibly cool, but unfortunately, it is also entirely impractical.
Also, a big thank you goes out to those who are willing to constructively criticize extravagant claims. Without criticism, science cannot progress. It is great to think outside the box, however, it is also important to invest time into more practical solutions. Albeit a great idea, it is an idea that just cannot work- not yet that is.
See more here: stopthesethings.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

Are humans causing bad weather events in the USA?

Published on October 14, 2021Written by cfact.org

The question should seem ludicrous on its face, yet many serious, educated and accomplished people in the U.S. and globally claim we are, starting with the President of the United States.

Add about half of the U.S. Congress, much of the corporate America, and the media and entertainment industries, which purportedly believe such drivel.
Making and believing evidence-free claims about human behavior contributing to catastrophic weather may be explained at least in part by the narcissistic tendencies of so many politicians and others with grandiose feelings of power and importance.
That human actions, namely, our economic behavior in an industrialized world, are causing the planet to warm in a tangible way and resulting in bad weather is belied by science and history.
Something deeper is occurring.
President Biden constantly asserts human-induced global warming is causing wildfires and hurricanes. His latest episode came during his recent trip to western states. “We know what the driver [of severe weather] is, climate change. We know what’s causing climate change, human activity,” Biden claimed. “This is no longer subject to debate… we don’t have much more than ten years.” The president further warned, “It’s not going to get any better than it is today. It only can get worse, not better.”
Note the “ten year” mantra should ring familiar, having been used for decades – and disproven.
In habitual fashion, the president provided no science, no evidence and no facts to substantiate his climate assertions, which he’s using to justify his massive, deeply flawed multi-trillion dollar agenda.
As Congress moves to pass climate policies aimed at planetary warming, the chairman of the U.S. House committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Frank Pallone, echoed the president. “Bold action is clearly needed – the days of incremental climate change are gone,” which he blamed for “natural disasters.”
As part of the President’s $3.5 trillion proposed budget increase, billions of dollars are slated to subsidize electric car purchases and solar panel installation. Private corporations also will get billions in taxpayer money to reduce their carbon emissions as costly mandates are imposed on power generation and energy use.
All of which will accomplish nothing.
The planet’s climate trajectory, the vicissitudes of which have occurred naturally for thousands of years of recorded history and billions of years more, is due to a multitude of factors way beyond mankind’s use of fossil fuels. Such planetary realities will be unaffected by spending additional billions of dollars of money fresh off the printing presses.
Contrary to President Biden’s dogmatism on climate and severe weather, beware of anyone – especially a politician – claiming something is “not subject to debate.” This certainly applies to a complex, multi-faceted subject as global climate even as new research shows a much diminished impact of the stated “greenhouse effect” of carbon emissions and its related computer modeling.
Periodic hurricanes will continue as they have since time began. Weather expert Joe Bastardi recently documented major hurricane activity going back to 1900.
There is nothing unusual about present-day hurricanes that wasn’t occurring in the last 120 years with far less economic industrialization and many fewer people. CFACT’s Paul Driessen further documented the commonality of other extreme weather events since the 1800s, which have zero correlation to planetary warming.
Wildfires in western states will continue – and worsen – not from climate “change” but until politicians cease their dereliction and overcome the radical Green movement by clearing deadwood throughout American forests. Blaming such fires on a half- to one-degree warmer climate in the last 40 years is absurd and unfounded.
With all the available science and history on the planet’s climate and weather events, combined with the litany of bogus climate predictions, why do so many charlatans and politicians from the president on down persist? There are many reasons, including the aforementioned political agenda, the money-making climate cottage industry influence, and lack of scrutiny by the media.
There also is, I contend, the narcissism effect. Narcissism has several characteristics that are replete among politicians. One need not have actual narcissistic personality disorder with its critical mass of behaviors to exude narcissism. Rather, narcissistic conduct I believe fuels fantastical climate assertions, especially from politicians.
Narcissistic traits include grandiosity, self-importance, attention seeking and need for control (including manipulation). Narcissistic people often also react angrily when challenged. They typically display these traits through pretension and dishonesty that fuels their desire for power and stature.
Hear politicians like President Biden, Representative Pallone and so many others discuss the supposed urgency of dealing with climate; they want you to believe they have the power to “heal” the planet. Can one act more grandiose and self-important?
Narcissism is pervasive in American society, especially in the political class that governs us. It is rampantly in evidence in pushing climate polices politicians claim will alter Earth itself. Narcissists are typically charming and accomplished individuals, but not rational.
Neither is the increasing lunacy of climate politics.
See more here: cfact.org
Header image: BBC
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

South Pole posts most severe cold season on record

Published on October 14, 2021Written by washingtonpost.com

While the rest of the world (allegedly-Ed) sizzled, the South Pole shivered with an average temperature of minus-78 degrees over the past six months.

Amid a record hot summer in large parts of the Northern Hemisphere, beset by devastating fires, floods and hurricanes, Antarctica was mired in a deep, deep freeze. That’s typically the case during the southernmost continent’s winter months, but 2021 was different.

The chill was exceptional, even for the coldest location on the planet.

The average temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September, a frigid -78 degrees (minus-61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5 degrees lower than the most recent 30-year average at this remote station, which is operated by United States Antarctic Program and administered by the National Science Foundation.

While impressive and unexpected, scientists characterized this record as a mere blip and curiosity as both Antarctica and the planet continue to rapidly warm amid escalating extreme weather.

We first learned of this record through a tweet from Stefano Di Battista, who has published research on Antarctic temperatures. The legitimacy of Di Battista’s information was confirmed by Richard Cullather, a research scientist at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, who provided the chart below.

The Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station experienced the coldest average temperature for April to September in 2021 on record. This chart displays the average temperature since 1957 in degrees Celsius. (Richard Cullather/British Antarctic Survey)

The extreme cold over Antarctica helped push sea ice levels surrounding the continent to their fifth-highest level on record in August, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Matthew Lazzara, an expert on the meteorology of Antarctica and scientist at the University of Wisconsin, monitored the South Pole temperatures in recent months from his office in Madison with awe. In an interview, he said it was around minus-100 degrees on numerous occasions. Over the years, he’s traveled to Antarctica many times to support his research.

“At these temperatures, it is difficult to operate aircraft,” he wrote in an email. “[B]etween -50°C and -58°C you put the aircraft at risk with the hydraulics freezing up or fuel turning into a jelly.”

Once he visited the South Pole in late October. “I got to experience -50°C weather … with a wind chill beyond that. I was *thrilled* to be wearing my 75 lbs of Extreme Cold Weather gear to stay warm,” he joked.

Extraordinarily cold weather continues to grip the Antarctic Plateau. Maximiliano Herrera, a climatologist who monitors world weather extremes, tweeted that temperature at Russia’s Vostok Station sunk to minus-110.9 degrees (minus-79.4 Celsius) on Thursday, which was just one degree (0.6 Celsius) from the world’s lowest temperature on record during October.

The current temperatures are still some distance from the coldest ever observed on the continent. In July 1983, Vostok plummeted to minus-129 degrees (minus-89.6 Celsius). Satellites have detected temperatures as low as minus-144 degrees (minus-98 Celsius).

Behind the extreme cold

Scientists credited a very strong polar vortex, or a ring of strong winds in the stratosphere, surrounding Antarctica for the intensity of the cold.

The stratospheric polar vortex is a seasonal phenomenon. In the Southern Hemisphere, it forms in the fall, persists through the winter and weakens before reversing course in spring.

The strength of the vortex has connections to weather at the ground, said Krzysztof Wargan, a research scientist with NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office. He said a strong vortex is associated with low surface temperatures.

Whether the vortex is strong or weak depends on a cycle known as Southern Annular Mode (SAM). Right now, the mode is in its positive phase and the vortex is intense.

“Basically, the winds in the polar stratosphere have been stronger than normal, which is associated with shifting the jet stream toward the pole,” Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, wrote in a message. “This keeps the cold air locked up over much of Antarctica.”
Butler wrote that the strong polar vortex not only makes it very cold over Antarctica but accelerates processes that lead to stratospheric ozone depletion, which in turn can strengthen the vortex even more. This year’s ozone hole over Antarctica is much bigger than average at around 24 million square kilometers, a reflection of the vortex’s strength.
Although the stratospheric ozone layer is on the mend since some ozone-depleting chemicals were banned by the Montreal Protocol in the 1980s, Wargan said year-to-year variations are expected to influence the size of the ozone holes in the coming decades.

The planet and Antarctica are still warming

Scientists stressed that the record cold over the South Pole in no way refutes or lessens the seriousness of global warming. Antarctica is notorious for its wild swings in weather and climate, which can run counter to global trends.

Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado, wrote in an email that the Antarctic climate is extremely sensitive to high-altitude winds and Pacific Ocean conditions and prone to rapid change. He pointed out that its sea ice, which was close to a record high at the end of August tanked to “to one of the lowest extents for this time of year that we’ve seen” by the end of September.

To evaluate what’s happening with the climate of Antarctica, one must look beyond a seasonal snapshot, scientists said.

“One cold winter is interesting but doesn’t change the long term trend, which is warming,” Eric Steig, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, wrote in an email.

David Bromwich, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Ohio State University, attributed the cold to increasing “short-term variability” at the South Pole in recent years. “In the long-term average Antarctica is warming,” he wrote in an email.

At the moment, though, the Antarctic cold is beyond numbing.

The temperature at the South Pole at the time of publication of this article on Oct. 1 was minus-67 degrees with a wind chill of minus-101.
See more here: washingtonpost.com
Header image: Lisa Minelli-Endlich
Editor’s note: Publications like the Washington Post just can’t help themselves. They accurately report the coldest Antarctic winter since 1957, then finish by saying ignore the cold, the Antarctic is warming up!

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Related

Trackback from your site.

>