Monday, December 9, 2013
DANGER: RADIOACTIVE – Do Not Drink More than 63,000 Gallons of Water
A lot of the below, though not all, Dr. Robinson (and his predecessor, Petr Beckmann) and I are quite in agreement on. If you read it with an open mind -- this could take some effort -- you just might too. He is, after all, the scientist who discovered Pauling's work on vitamin C a sham -- and was banished and his research destroyed because of it.
My name is Art Robinson. I am Professor of Chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and I publish a pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter, Access to Energy, which in September 1997 began its twenty fifth year. Access to Energy was founded by Professor Petr Beckmann in 1973 and published by him until his death in 1993.
As for those 63,000 gallons, our readers know why they are safe. We don’t ask them to trust and parrot us, we ask them to think.
In this case, we told them how much radioactive iodine 131 is given to a healthy patient in a thyroid check: up to 90 microcuries (a cancer patient is given much more). And we reported the maximum measured activity in rainwater washing out Chernobyl’s iodine over the US: 0.00036 microcuries per liter. There is about 4 liters to the gallon; hence 63,000 gallons of “contaminated” rain water “full of fallout” will give you as much radioactive iodine as you get when you have your thyroid checked.
Does that tiny grain of knowledge make you feel good?
It should, because America’s news media and largest periodicals don’t have it.
They work by the T&P (trust and parrot) method. They may differ in whom to trust and parrot; but they share a common inability to evaluate. They will find two opposing viewpoints and manufacture a “controversy;” for they think objectivity lies halfway between the truth and a lie (or worse, between two lies).
In the Three Mile Island episode, Access to Energy pointed out at the time that the accident would cost more than one life per week: not from any radiation, but in the fuel cycle of the substitute power, mostly coal-fired, that had to be brought in to replace the safer and healthier way of generating electric power nuclear power.
In the Chernobyl accident, too, we pointed out that in its short life of 25 months, Chernobyl Unit 4 saved more lives from coal-fired pollution than it took, or will ever take, by radiation. And we gave the reasons why the Soviets did not even bother to dilute contaminated wheat with grain from elsewhere. “A little cesium and strontium gave the Russians a more varied diet; for unlike Markey, Solarz, Schroeder and the other antinuclear breast beaters in Congress, the Soviets care only about visible deaths.”
But Access to Energy is not just about nuclear energy (which is merely a very blatant target of superstition mongering). It is about the truth and how to arrive at it in scientific fields.
In all other cases of irrational panic, Access to Energy gives reasons, not parroted hunches, for its conclusions; and it tells you where you can check them independently.
If you think these reasons are unimportant compared with the political need of distributing research grants and humoring the sham environmentalists, support the efforts of the EPA and the State Department to ban “ozone-destroying” chemicals. (Not sure I agree here -- David Strumfels.)
If you think corporations can be taxed without passing the tax to the consumer, join Ralph Nader in soaking the rich. (I think he's out of date here. David Strumfels)
If you are looking for somebody to trust and parrot, get your opinions ready-made from the network newscasters and newspaper analysts, who are mostly trusting and parroting each other.
But if you want to form an opinion by rational conclusion from measured data, subscribe to Access to Energy.
My name is Art Robinson. I am Professor of Chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and I publish a pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter, Access to Energy, which in September 1997 began its twenty fifth year. Access to Energy was founded by Professor Petr Beckmann in 1973 and published by him until his death in 1993.
As for those 63,000 gallons, our readers know why they are safe. We don’t ask them to trust and parrot us, we ask them to think.
In this case, we told them how much radioactive iodine 131 is given to a healthy patient in a thyroid check: up to 90 microcuries (a cancer patient is given much more). And we reported the maximum measured activity in rainwater washing out Chernobyl’s iodine over the US: 0.00036 microcuries per liter. There is about 4 liters to the gallon; hence 63,000 gallons of “contaminated” rain water “full of fallout” will give you as much radioactive iodine as you get when you have your thyroid checked.
Does that tiny grain of knowledge make you feel good?
It should, because America’s news media and largest periodicals don’t have it.
They work by the T&P (trust and parrot) method. They may differ in whom to trust and parrot; but they share a common inability to evaluate. They will find two opposing viewpoints and manufacture a “controversy;” for they think objectivity lies halfway between the truth and a lie (or worse, between two lies).
In the Three Mile Island episode, Access to Energy pointed out at the time that the accident would cost more than one life per week: not from any radiation, but in the fuel cycle of the substitute power, mostly coal-fired, that had to be brought in to replace the safer and healthier way of generating electric power nuclear power.
In the Chernobyl accident, too, we pointed out that in its short life of 25 months, Chernobyl Unit 4 saved more lives from coal-fired pollution than it took, or will ever take, by radiation. And we gave the reasons why the Soviets did not even bother to dilute contaminated wheat with grain from elsewhere. “A little cesium and strontium gave the Russians a more varied diet; for unlike Markey, Solarz, Schroeder and the other antinuclear breast beaters in Congress, the Soviets care only about visible deaths.”
But Access to Energy is not just about nuclear energy (which is merely a very blatant target of superstition mongering). It is about the truth and how to arrive at it in scientific fields.
In all other cases of irrational panic, Access to Energy gives reasons, not parroted hunches, for its conclusions; and it tells you where you can check them independently.
If you think these reasons are unimportant compared with the political need of distributing research grants and humoring the sham environmentalists, support the efforts of the EPA and the State Department to ban “ozone-destroying” chemicals. (Not sure I agree here -- David Strumfels.)
If you think corporations can be taxed without passing the tax to the consumer, join Ralph Nader in soaking the rich. (I think he's out of date here. David Strumfels)
If you are looking for somebody to trust and parrot, get your opinions ready-made from the network newscasters and newspaper analysts, who are mostly trusting and parroting each other.
But if you want to form an opinion by rational conclusion from measured data, subscribe to Access to Energy.
Home-school culture shifting away from religious ties
David J Strumfels I see the academic advantages of home-schooling (if done well), but I worry these kids won't get the social education -- just as important -- that they need. Home-schooling parents must make sure their kids don't become socially isolated.
Home-schooling has risen among secular students in recent years. A 2013 National Center for Education Statistics study showed home-schoolers no longer list religion as their top reason for schooling from home.
Gerry Broome, Associated Press
Eric Peschel and his family have different reasons for home-schooling.
One of his sons was taken out of public school for religious reasons and bullying. Another is taught at home because the public education system wasn't working for Peschel. His daughter was home-schooled too, but "bonding issues" caused the Peschels to put their daughter back into public school.
“Just seeing the difference between what is being taught in public school versus our school, it’s not even close,” Peschel said. “They’re not even close in the vocabulary they’re teaching, the math they’re teaching. It’s off the charts different.”
Though home-schooling has been a historically popular choice for religious conservatives, it's becoming more common among secular students. A National Center for Education Statistics study showed home-schoolers no longer list religion as their top reason for opting out of public or private schools. More than 91 percent see the environment as a reason to home-school, while 64 percent (about 692,299 students) see religion as an important reason to home-school. In 1999, about 327,000 students were home-schooled for religious reasons.
And home-schooling has been on the rise, too. More than a decade ago in 1999, about 850,000 students were home-schooled, which was nearly half of the 1,770,000 home-schooled students reported for the 2011-2012 school year, according to the NCES.
Between bullying worries and lack of belief in the public education system, many parents choose home-schooling to avoid these problems, experts say.
“I’ve seen some remarkable quality educations given to home-school kids in remarkable ways,” said John Edelson, founder and president of Time4Learning, a home-school curriculum organization. “While I see that in public schools, too, parents are a lot more resourceful to give kids quality educations.”
But as home-schooling becomes more popular, it also faces added scrutiny. In Nebraska, the Department of Education is looking to add new stipulations to track attendance for home-schoolers, which requires parents to fill out more paperwork. Other parents worry about the influence Common Core Standards is already having on their ability to shape curriculum to the needs of their children. For many, taking back control of their child's education is a fight that only continues.
A new market
Edelson of Time4Learning said there are three types of home-schoolers: religious people, free thinkers and “accidental home-schoolers,” who are “pragmatically doing what’s best for their kids.”
Because of this, academies that cater to home-schoolers or companies like Time4Learning have to adapt.
Edelson offers students a non-religious curriculum that is part online and part offline. It begins with an opening discussion, then 30 minutes of computer work and 30 minutes of desk work throughout the day.
It's a way of tapping into a new market of virtual home-schoolers, who are on the rise too, Edelson said. Instead of using the traditional method of hiring a home-school teacher, some parents want to enroll their children in an online education system, which they can also do from home, Edelson said.
Jessica Parnell, principal of Bridgeway Home School Academy, which offers curriculum for home-schooling parents, is also marketing itself in new ways by including mainstream and secular curriculums as a way to bring in families who want to avoid religious teachings.
Global Village School, a home-schooling organization that offers online and text-based curriculum, decided to shift its marketing focus in recent months toward secular students due to demand, said Gretchen Buck, the school's manager. She said part of this increased interest in home-schooling is from parents who think their children aren't getting enough attention in public schools.
“We’re not looking to fit all the square pegs in little round holes,” she said of her company's curriculum.
Peschel said public schools also don't have the materials and resources for optimal learning, like textbooks or writing utensils. Sometimes students can't take home a textbook to further develop their understanding, leaving them with less homework and less time to study.
“You want them to learn the material, but the only time they can learn it is when they’re in the class,” Peschel said.
Parnell agreed.
“They’re just not being helped,” Parnell said. “They’re getting passed along."
Another reason for the rise in new home-schoolers is because parents don’t see the traditional classroom setting as helpful for their children, Buck said.
“It doesn’t fit them, and they don’t do well at a traditional desk,” she said.
Parents, then, are taking it upon themselves to start teaching, Parnell said, as they believe they can teach their children better than public school teachers.
"Parents are saying, ‘I want control back,’ ” Parnell said.
In many cases, home-schooling parents will choose to home-school as a “last resort,” Edelson said, when the traditional educational system isn’t working.
“They get all fired up when they get into it and see the possibilities," Edelson said.
One of his sons was taken out of public school for religious reasons and bullying. Another is taught at home because the public education system wasn't working for Peschel. His daughter was home-schooled too, but "bonding issues" caused the Peschels to put their daughter back into public school.
“Just seeing the difference between what is being taught in public school versus our school, it’s not even close,” Peschel said. “They’re not even close in the vocabulary they’re teaching, the math they’re teaching. It’s off the charts different.”
Though home-schooling has been a historically popular choice for religious conservatives, it's becoming more common among secular students. A National Center for Education Statistics study showed home-schoolers no longer list religion as their top reason for opting out of public or private schools. More than 91 percent see the environment as a reason to home-school, while 64 percent (about 692,299 students) see religion as an important reason to home-school. In 1999, about 327,000 students were home-schooled for religious reasons.
And home-schooling has been on the rise, too. More than a decade ago in 1999, about 850,000 students were home-schooled, which was nearly half of the 1,770,000 home-schooled students reported for the 2011-2012 school year, according to the NCES.
Between bullying worries and lack of belief in the public education system, many parents choose home-schooling to avoid these problems, experts say.
“I’ve seen some remarkable quality educations given to home-school kids in remarkable ways,” said John Edelson, founder and president of Time4Learning, a home-school curriculum organization. “While I see that in public schools, too, parents are a lot more resourceful to give kids quality educations.”
But as home-schooling becomes more popular, it also faces added scrutiny. In Nebraska, the Department of Education is looking to add new stipulations to track attendance for home-schoolers, which requires parents to fill out more paperwork. Other parents worry about the influence Common Core Standards is already having on their ability to shape curriculum to the needs of their children. For many, taking back control of their child's education is a fight that only continues.
A new market
Edelson of Time4Learning said there are three types of home-schoolers: religious people, free thinkers and “accidental home-schoolers,” who are “pragmatically doing what’s best for their kids.”
Because of this, academies that cater to home-schoolers or companies like Time4Learning have to adapt.
Edelson offers students a non-religious curriculum that is part online and part offline. It begins with an opening discussion, then 30 minutes of computer work and 30 minutes of desk work throughout the day.
It's a way of tapping into a new market of virtual home-schoolers, who are on the rise too, Edelson said. Instead of using the traditional method of hiring a home-school teacher, some parents want to enroll their children in an online education system, which they can also do from home, Edelson said.
Jessica Parnell, principal of Bridgeway Home School Academy, which offers curriculum for home-schooling parents, is also marketing itself in new ways by including mainstream and secular curriculums as a way to bring in families who want to avoid religious teachings.
Global Village School, a home-schooling organization that offers online and text-based curriculum, decided to shift its marketing focus in recent months toward secular students due to demand, said Gretchen Buck, the school's manager. She said part of this increased interest in home-schooling is from parents who think their children aren't getting enough attention in public schools.
“We’re not looking to fit all the square pegs in little round holes,” she said of her company's curriculum.
Peschel said public schools also don't have the materials and resources for optimal learning, like textbooks or writing utensils. Sometimes students can't take home a textbook to further develop their understanding, leaving them with less homework and less time to study.
“You want them to learn the material, but the only time they can learn it is when they’re in the class,” Peschel said.
Parnell agreed.
“They’re just not being helped,” Parnell said. “They’re getting passed along."
Another reason for the rise in new home-schoolers is because parents don’t see the traditional classroom setting as helpful for their children, Buck said.
“It doesn’t fit them, and they don’t do well at a traditional desk,” she said.
Parents, then, are taking it upon themselves to start teaching, Parnell said, as they believe they can teach their children better than public school teachers.
"Parents are saying, ‘I want control back,’ ” Parnell said.
In many cases, home-schooling parents will choose to home-school as a “last resort,” Edelson said, when the traditional educational system isn’t working.
“They get all fired up when they get into it and see the possibilities," Edelson said.
Email: hscribner@deseretnews.com Twitter: @hscribner
Deer Trail, Colorado To Vote On Creating Drone-Hunting Licenses
In what was either a smart marketing ploy to get people excited about the Cyber Monday deals offered by the online company or a demonstration of potentially revolutionary technology, Amazon’s Prime Air video had a lot of people talking over the weekend.
The residents of Deer Trail, Colorado are not quite excited about the prospect of packages whizzing over their heads on a daily basis. One resident of the town, Philip Steel, explained that a drone in his vicinity would be nothing more than a target for him.
“I would shoot it down, ordinance or no, I would shoot it down. I will shoot it down and go to jail with a smile on my face,” Steel told the National Journal.
The ordinance to which Steel is referring is his own new law that would allow Deer Trail residents to purchase “$25 drone-hunting licenses,” the Daily Caller reports.
The text of the proposed ordinance is filled with libertarian paranoia about drone technology, but is written in a distinguished-enough legal text that it appears the residents of Deer Trail are taking it seriously.
“There shall henceforth exist a legal obligation of all citizens to defend their homes and community from incursions by unmanned aerial vehicles; and Whereas, many Western communities in rural America provide monetary incentives (bounties) for the killing of predators that are injurious to Man and his interests, the Town of Deer Trail likewise establishes hunting licenses and bounties for the killing of unmanned aerial vehicles, in keeping with the Western traditions of sovereignty and freedom,” the ordinance reads.
While the ordinance is extremely reactionary, at least some individuals are questioning the potentially drastic impact a service like Amazon Prime Air could have on society. As of the last census, Deer Trail, Colorado has a population of 561 individuals.
Life originated as a result of natural processes that exploited early Earth's raw materials.
From The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science :
Life originated as a result of natural processes that exploited early Earth's raw materials. Scientific models of life's origins almost always look to minerals for such essential tasks as the synthesis of life's molecular building blocks or the supply of metabolic energy. But this assumes that the mineral species found on Earth today are much the same as they were during Earth's first 550 million years—the Hadean Eon—when life emerged. A new analysis of Hadean mineralogy challenges that assumption. It is published in American Journal of Science.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ancient-minerals-gave-life.html#jCp
Life originated as a result of natural processes that exploited early Earth's raw materials. Scientific models of life's origins almost always look to minerals for such essential tasks as the synthesis of life's molecular building blocks or the supply of metabolic energy. But this assumes that the mineral species found on Earth today are much the same as they were during Earth's first 550 million years—the Hadean Eon—when life emerged. A new analysis of Hadean mineralogy challenges that assumption. It is published in American Journal of Science.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ancient-minerals-gave-life.html#jCp
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Wind turbines trash the landscape for the benefit of billionaires
Energy policy is chaotic and incoherent. The myth that wind power is 'free' has driven Britain's politicians mad
Simon Jenkins
'George Osborne finances a tiny group of extremely wealthy men to let someone else put up wind turbines on their land, or at least he did until Thursday.' Illustration: Satoshi Kambayashi
Is it fair for the chancellor to cut pensions for the poor while offering a million pounds a year to the Duke of Roxburghe for letting the wind blow? Is it fair to offer half a million to the Earl of Moray, a third of a million to the Earl of Glasgow, and a quarter of a million to the Duke of Beaufort, Sir Alastair Gordon Cumming and Sir Reginald Sheffield, the prime minister's father-in-law? Is it fair to promise a reported £1bn to Charles Connell over the next 25 years?
I am not particularly egalitarian. I support austerity in the public finances and accept that this may require a bit of smooth with the rough. But George Osborne is going beyond smooth.
British energy policy is chaotic. It is intellectually incoherent, lurching from fashion to fad with each lurch breeding a pile of taxpayer cash and a carnival of lobbyists out to protect it. Never in the history of public subsidy can so much have been paid by so many to so few.
The chancellor's well-trailed announcement that money for onshore turbines will be cut in favour of offshore is welcome in part, but it makes no sense. While less intrusive on the eye, offshore turbines are even more expensive and inefficient than onshore ones. The bizarre plan to erect 240 down the middle of the Bristol Channel has already been abandoned as uneconomic, despite Osborne's subsidy. The huge East Anglian field may cost billions. It all makes nuclear seem a bargain.
I have sympathy with the wind lobby in one respect. Its members are trying to turn an honest penny and must plan ahead. Just a couple of years ago they were told by wind's most fanatical subsidiser, Chris Huhne, to plan for 10,000 onshore turbines. Contracts were promised. Public money was unlimited. Offshore wind alone would "generate 20,000 British jobs". It was rubbish. The giant Sheringham field is so Norwegian that the country's crown prince was invited to declare it open.
There are almost no British jobs. The German firm Siemens makes most British turbines and sensibly does not rely on British government policy for its investment. It builds on the continent. Its competitor Vestas has pulled the plug on a plant in Kent, and South Korea's Doosan has done likewise in Glasgow. The energy required to mine the turbines' rare minerals and build, import and erect them makes a mockery of their "greenness".
The industry lobby, RenewableUK, on Thursday deplored what it suspected was a "political decision" to cut subsidy, and it was right. The switch reeked of Downing Street's obsession with Ukip, which has shrewdly opposed wind turbines. But an industry that is effectively a state subcontractor must accept such whims. The golden goose would never last.
I have spent two years traipsing Britain in search of the finest views. It is hard to convey the devastating impact of the turbines to those who have not seen them, especially a political elite that never leaves the south-east except for abroad. Fields of these structures are now rising almost everywhere. They are sited irrespective of the wind, since subsidy is paid irrespective of supply, even if there is none. It makes EU agricultural policy a paragon of sanity.
Turbines are to surround Cornwall and stretch along the north Devon coast. They will form a wall off the Dorset shore. They will line Offa's Dyke from Gwent to Shropshire, with a single giant on Clyro Hill looking down the Wye Valley like Rio's Christ the Redeemer. The once desolate Cambrian Mountains are on the way to being an estate of 840 turbines filling views in every direction.
The shires of Northampton, Nottingham and Cambridge are already gathering turbines. Heckington Fen in Lincolnshire may have ones higher than Lincoln cathedral. They are to appear in the Forest of Bowland in Lancashire, in the Brontë country of Yorkshire and on Spurn point off the Humber.
The wildest coastline left in England, in Northumberland, is being flanked by 70 turbines. In Scotland the Roxburghe array of 400 turbines has turned the once lovely Lammermuir Hills into a power station. Inverness and Caithness are to lose their open vistas, as are the Shetlands and the islands off Argyll. Scottish aristocrats have not seen such a turn in fortune since the Highland clearances.
Britain's landscape has never before been subject to such visual transformation. Human hands have always refashioned the country, urban and rural alike, but they have not industrialised its appearance on remotely this scale. Roads, railway lines, quarries, even towns and cities, are inconspicuous compared to wind turbines. Few of Britain's greatest views will be free of the sight of them.
Mostly the gain is footling. Turbines seldom produce their declared capacity. The one that towers over the M4 at Reading generates just 16% of its capacity. What they really generate is money, up to £30,000 a year each in subsidy. The billions poured into wind would have been far better spent – as energy professor Dieter Helm, the consultants KPMG and others have long argued – in pursuing lower emissions through energy efficiency and cleaner carbon.
Yet the myth that wind is "free" has driven politicians mad. They have chased the length and breadth of the land showering quantities of public money on a tiny handful of the rich. Britain's modern landscape is their memorial.
I am not particularly egalitarian. I support austerity in the public finances and accept that this may require a bit of smooth with the rough. But George Osborne is going beyond smooth.
British energy policy is chaotic. It is intellectually incoherent, lurching from fashion to fad with each lurch breeding a pile of taxpayer cash and a carnival of lobbyists out to protect it. Never in the history of public subsidy can so much have been paid by so many to so few.
The chancellor's well-trailed announcement that money for onshore turbines will be cut in favour of offshore is welcome in part, but it makes no sense. While less intrusive on the eye, offshore turbines are even more expensive and inefficient than onshore ones. The bizarre plan to erect 240 down the middle of the Bristol Channel has already been abandoned as uneconomic, despite Osborne's subsidy. The huge East Anglian field may cost billions. It all makes nuclear seem a bargain.
I have sympathy with the wind lobby in one respect. Its members are trying to turn an honest penny and must plan ahead. Just a couple of years ago they were told by wind's most fanatical subsidiser, Chris Huhne, to plan for 10,000 onshore turbines. Contracts were promised. Public money was unlimited. Offshore wind alone would "generate 20,000 British jobs". It was rubbish. The giant Sheringham field is so Norwegian that the country's crown prince was invited to declare it open.
There are almost no British jobs. The German firm Siemens makes most British turbines and sensibly does not rely on British government policy for its investment. It builds on the continent. Its competitor Vestas has pulled the plug on a plant in Kent, and South Korea's Doosan has done likewise in Glasgow. The energy required to mine the turbines' rare minerals and build, import and erect them makes a mockery of their "greenness".
The industry lobby, RenewableUK, on Thursday deplored what it suspected was a "political decision" to cut subsidy, and it was right. The switch reeked of Downing Street's obsession with Ukip, which has shrewdly opposed wind turbines. But an industry that is effectively a state subcontractor must accept such whims. The golden goose would never last.
I have spent two years traipsing Britain in search of the finest views. It is hard to convey the devastating impact of the turbines to those who have not seen them, especially a political elite that never leaves the south-east except for abroad. Fields of these structures are now rising almost everywhere. They are sited irrespective of the wind, since subsidy is paid irrespective of supply, even if there is none. It makes EU agricultural policy a paragon of sanity.
Turbines are to surround Cornwall and stretch along the north Devon coast. They will form a wall off the Dorset shore. They will line Offa's Dyke from Gwent to Shropshire, with a single giant on Clyro Hill looking down the Wye Valley like Rio's Christ the Redeemer. The once desolate Cambrian Mountains are on the way to being an estate of 840 turbines filling views in every direction.
The shires of Northampton, Nottingham and Cambridge are already gathering turbines. Heckington Fen in Lincolnshire may have ones higher than Lincoln cathedral. They are to appear in the Forest of Bowland in Lancashire, in the Brontë country of Yorkshire and on Spurn point off the Humber.
The wildest coastline left in England, in Northumberland, is being flanked by 70 turbines. In Scotland the Roxburghe array of 400 turbines has turned the once lovely Lammermuir Hills into a power station. Inverness and Caithness are to lose their open vistas, as are the Shetlands and the islands off Argyll. Scottish aristocrats have not seen such a turn in fortune since the Highland clearances.
Britain's landscape has never before been subject to such visual transformation. Human hands have always refashioned the country, urban and rural alike, but they have not industrialised its appearance on remotely this scale. Roads, railway lines, quarries, even towns and cities, are inconspicuous compared to wind turbines. Few of Britain's greatest views will be free of the sight of them.
Mostly the gain is footling. Turbines seldom produce their declared capacity. The one that towers over the M4 at Reading generates just 16% of its capacity. What they really generate is money, up to £30,000 a year each in subsidy. The billions poured into wind would have been far better spent – as energy professor Dieter Helm, the consultants KPMG and others have long argued – in pursuing lower emissions through energy efficiency and cleaner carbon.
Yet the myth that wind is "free" has driven politicians mad. They have chased the length and breadth of the land showering quantities of public money on a tiny handful of the rich. Britain's modern landscape is their memorial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Introduction to entropy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduct...
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام ( ...
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
