“… But surely the most surreal episode of the march was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. saying Morano and I and thousands like us should be jailed for expressing doubts about “dangerous manmade climate change.”
“I think they should be in jail … with all the other war criminals.” Republican politicians too – “those guys are doing the Koch brothers bidding and are against all the evidence, saying global warming does not exist. They are contemptible human beings,” he fumed.
“So RFK the younger wants to punish us for the “crimes” of exercising our First Amendment rights, demanding actual evidence to support alarmist assertions, saying people’s needs for reliable, affordable energy must be part of the conversation – and insisting that those needs take precedence over absurd claims that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” posing “greater long-term consequences” than ISIL, terrorism or Ebola, as Secretary of State John Kerry insists.”
Professor David Bellamy OBE died recently at the age of 86 and it’s fair to say he goes down in history as one of the first victims sacrificed on the altar of the new religion of climate change.
David Bellamy was a prolific broadcaster, respected authority on botany of the natural world. He wrote and appeared in, or presented, hundreds of television programs on botany, ecology, environmentalism and other issues. But was ultimately disowned by the BBC, never to appear again within their hallowed halls once his declared stance against the new religion of CAGW became known.
I never met him but we corresponded and both appeared on an Australian TV interview. He was very interested in our green sheep, see:
Windows.old is an authentic envelope which is made on the framework subsequent to updating Windows working framework. It doesn’t make a difference whether you updated from Windows 7, Windows 8 or Windows 8.1, you will even now discover this envelope putting away all the data from the past OS. This organizer incorporates different information and applications from put away in Windows, Program Files, Documents and Settings envelopes. There two fundamental reasons why this organizer has been made. To start with, this organizer permits recouping singular documents. Consequently, in the event that you can’t discover a portion of the critical archives or documents in the wake of moving up to the most recent Windows form, you can look through this organizer and duplicate individual records. As such, it’s your reinforcements. Second, on the off chance that you didn’t appreciate the most recent OS and discover the need to downsize, this organizer is likewise vital for this system.
Experts dependably recommend keeping this envelope for two or three days or two in the wake of overhauling working framework with a specific end goal to recuperate your records or minimization. Be that as it may, in the event that you have reinforcements put away in the outer gadget and have no goals of changing back to the old OS rendition, you may discover this envelope futile. Delete Windows.Old folder in Windows 10 One of the fundamental reasons why individuals express the want to erase Windows.old envelope is that it takes a great deal of hard circle space. Without a doubt, contingent upon how much information you had, this envelope may take from 10 GB to two or free circumstances a greater amount of the space. Surely, if your PC does not have an expansive plate drive, you may do not have the space for the new information. In this way, you may discover this envelope troublesome and taking excessively of the significant space. On the off chance that you need to erase Windows.old, you have two choices. You can sit tight for a month until the point when Windows naturally expels this organizer, or you can do it physically. On the off chance that you need to dispose of it at this moment, you should realize that it’s difficult to erase it as essentially as consistent envelopes. Notwithstanding this reality, it’s not a hard errand.
How to Delete Windows.old organizer on Windows?
On the off chance that you choose to click Del catch on your console, or expel Windows.old envelope from the File Explorer, you will hear a Windows mistake sound and see a notice message. It’s not a right approach to expel this envelope from the framework. Expulsion requires utilizing a Windows Disk Cleanup instrument. Try not to stress. You don’t have to introduce any new programming. This application is as of now introduced on your machine. Along these lines, take after the means underneath and make some space on your PC:
1. Open Windows Disk Cleanup application. Tap on the Start catch and utilize Windows hunt to discover this program.
2. Open the program and pick the primary framework drive. Tap on Clean up framework documents catch and sit tight for two or three minutes while Windows finishes the output.
3. When you get filter comes about, you will discover a rundown of various records and how much circle space the utilization. For example, you will see Recycle Bin, Temporary records, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Nonetheless, you should search for Previous Windows installation(s) and check this alternative.
4. Snap OK to affirm the erasure.
Dispose of projects with just a single tick
You can uninstall this program with the assistance of the well ordered guide introduced to you by ugetfix.com specialists. windows book To spare your chance, we have additionally chosen apparatuses that will enable you to complete this errand consequently. On the off chance that you are in a rush or on the off chance that you feel that you are not sufficiently experienced to uninstall the program by your own, vibe allowed to utilize these arrangements:
Dr Michael Crawford has written a response to the Finkel Report.
From the introduction:
“I have read your recent report with interest. Over about half a century I have observed that government reports are sometimes dishonest, ideological, obfuscatory, authoritarian, bureaucratised, wanting in courage, illogical and sometimes downright stupid.
“I have to salute you sir. Your recent report appears to have set new heights in this respect.
“Let me take some time to explain why your report so qualifies.
“Dishonesty
“Under section 137.1(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995, a person commits an offence if they give information to (i) a Commonwealth entity, or (ii) a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth, AND the person (the source of the information) does so knowing that the information (i) is false or misleading; or (ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading.
“As will be seen below, your report appears to meet all of these conditions. Now I know that holding government officials to the same legal standards as apply to other citizens is considered, in official circles, to be unsporting. I also appreciate that the Prime Minister and sundry Ministers and other officials would find it enormously embarrassing were the author of your report to be taken before the courts. So I suspect the chance of you actually having to face charges is pretty slim.
“That does not alter the fact that your report appears in breach of section 137.1(1) of the Act in
a way that would lead to penalties for less privileged mortals.
Dr Michael Crawford has a BSc and an MD in management from ANU and a BA and PhD in organisation theory and management from UNSW. He has undertaken research and teaching on the Executive Programs at the Australian Graduate School of Management.
He is co-author of the book Changing Power: Capabilities That Drive Corporate Renewal, based on a six year study of Australian and New Zealand corporate change.
After graduation Dr Crawford spent 11 years in the Australian public service and two years in the Australian Army including one year in Vietnam.
His consulting activities have covered major projects across a wide range of industries including food processing, mining, banking, IT, community services, healthcare and the public service.
He maintains an interest in the failings of government administration and policy.
Playing Snakes and Ladders with Australia’s Electricity Supply. By Viv Forbes & Helpers
Every day some green energy promoter or a battery salesman tells us how green energy with battery backup will supply Australia’s future electricity needs.
A battery stores energy. Energy can be stored using lead-acid, nickel/cadmium, lithium, molten salt, pumped hydro, hydrogen, flywheels, compressed air or some other smart gizmo. But NOT ONE battery produces new energy – they simply store and discharge energy produced by other means.OnePlus 5 specs They all deliver less energy than they consume. Moreover, to manufacture, charge, use and dispose of batteries consumes energy and resources.
The idea of producing reliable grid power from intermittent green energy backed up by batteries looks possible in green doodle-diagrams, but would be absurdly inefficient and expensive.
Solar works a Six hour day
Consider a solar panel which is rated to collect say 100 units of energy per day at full capacity, in full mid-day sunlight, with a clean panel, properly aligned to face the sun.
No solar energy arrives overnight and only minimal amounts arrive during the three hours after dawn or before dusk. That means that significant solar energy can only be collected for about 6 hours per day, providing it is not cloudy, raining or snowing. No amount of research or regulation will change this – the solar energy union only works a six-hour day and takes quite a few sickies. So instead of feeding 100 units of energy per day into the grid, at best, the panel supplies just 25 units.
Can the addition of batteries give us 24/7 power from solar?
To deliver 100 units of energy in 24 hours will require an extra 75 units of energy to be collected, stored and delivered by the batteries every sunny day. This will require another three solar units devoted solely to re-charging batteries in just 6 sunny hours.
Cloudy/wet days are what really expose the problems of solar plus batteries. (This is why isolated green power systems must have a diesel generator in the shed.)
To insure against, say, 7 days of cloudy weather would require a solar/battery system capable of collecting and storing 700 units of energy while still delivering 100 units to consumers every day. However if several consecutive weeks of sunny weather then occur, this bloated system is capable of delivering 7 times more power than needed, causing power prices to plunge, driving reliable generators out of business and wasting the life of solar panels producing unwanted electricity. 192.168.l.254
Solar energy obviously does best in sunny equatorial deserts, but that is not where most people live. And the huge Desertec Solar Power Dream for the northern Sahara has failed.
The report card on wind energy is different, but equally depressing.
When Australia had reliable, predictable coal-gas-hydro power in every state, the need for heavy interstate transmission was minimal. But green power will require robust and costly interstate transmission facilities to send large amounts of power at short notice from sunny coal-rich Queensland to cloudy Victoria, windless South Australia or droughted Tasmania.
The problem with wind power is that electric utilities have to be prepared at any time for their power production to just stop on short notice. So they must keep fossil fuel plants on hot standby, meaning they are basically burning fuel but not producing any power.tutuapp android Storage technologies and the use of relatively fast-start plants like gas turbines mitigates this problem a bit but does not come close to eliminating it. This is why wind power simply as a source contributing to the grid makes very little sense.
The Green-ants said “You can’t burn coal” – so we sent our coal to China. Then our factories and our smelters closed and followed the coal to China.
The Green-ants said “You can’t eat beef” – so we sent our beef to China. Then burger chains and canneries closed and followed the beef to China.
The Green-ants said “Protect the trees” – so our grasslands went to weeds. Then China’s wool cheques disappeared and graziers went on welfare.
The Green-ants said “Don’t mention nukes” – so we shipped those fuels to China. Then Chinese power costs fell while ours just kept on soaring.
The Green-ants said “You can’t frack gas” – so we sent our drills to China. Then geologists and engineers were fired and followed the rigs to China.
Then blackouts came and jobs got scarce, so our kids chased jobs in China.
Today we import what we need and our cash is shipped to China.
And now we sit in flickering light, dreaming of times when factories and smelters flourished, work was honoured, explorers and builders were heroes, miners and farmers paid the nation’s bills, electricity was cheap and reliable, and to produce things was no crime.
It’s time we sent all of our Green-ants to China – there should be lots of work for them there.
Dr. Howard Hayden is Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut. He is the editor of “The Energy Advocate” a pro-energy, pro-science, and pro-technology newsletter.www.energyadvocate.com
We have about a dozen pumped-hydro plants in the US. In some places (that’s why they’re not abundant) it is economically feasible to store energy by pumping water uphill to a higher reservoir, and then release it when demand is high.
Hydro has the advantage of being a system that can turn on or off in a hurry. Typically, a dam has a lot of independent water turbines. So you can turn on (say) 50 MW, 100 MW, and so on.
Greenies look at storage systems as their salvation. (Indeed, solar and wind are nearly worthless without back-up.) What they fail to realize is that back-up is far better used with conventional power.
If a back-up system (of whatever type you care to mention) is used with wind or solar, it has to have enough storage to last for days — possibly even weeks — to keep the grid from going down.
Now look what happens in you increase conventional baseload power (the cheapest, most reliable) beyond the actual baseload demand. During times of low demand, you store the excess energy, and then release it during times of high demand. The upshot is that you need to store only something like 20% of one day’s energy rather than 100% energy for many days. (Even a greenie ought to be able to see that 3 or 4 or 5 or … is greater than 0.2.
As to the Australian Snowy 2.0 project, I have no idea whether it makes any sense or not. But if it does, it makes far more sense for conventional power than wind and solar.
Just to keep you abreast of what is going on in France…
You may have heard of the Yellow Vests, who triggered our president Macron into embarking on a “Grand Debate”, mainly on the internet. It is mostly a closed questionnaire with circular arguments on the most surreptitious ways to shoehorn the energy transition, without offering to question its legitimacy in the first place. However, looking closely at the fine print, contributors like associations can still express an open opinion.
On our side Rémy Prud’homme is an emeritus professor of economics, former consultant to the OECD, occasionally to the World Bank, and visiting professor at the MIT. As such he is our chief economist within the steering committee of the French Climato-Réalistes. He came up with the attached “ENERGY TRANSITION IN FRANCE: USELESS, COSTLY, UNFAIR”, initially in French of course. See: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/energy-transition-in-france.pdf [PDF, 346 KB]
We thought you may like to know that we Froggies are enduring the same attacks as everywhere in the western world and that we like to voice our concern.
Sympathetically yours,
Pierre Bouteille, on behalf of the French Climato-Réalistes
RSS
