AuthorTopic: Agelbert's Newz Channel  (Read 1457998 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13977
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8670 on: February 08, 2018, 12:30:03 PM »
Monday's sell-off surpasses a 777.68 points drop on the Dow Jones on 29 September 2008

No it doesn't. It's just over half as much in percentage terms. We're not correcting from  11,000. We're correcting from 26,600.

Just for comparison sake, the fall of 2008 had 11 of the worst 20 one day drops in Dow history. Every one of them was a worse day than this last Monday.

https://www.infoplease.com/business-finance/stock-market/biggest-one-day-declines-dow-jones-industrial-average

Pure hyperbole, these ZH trash pieces.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12550
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Dow Jones 🌠 hit by worst fall since 2008
« Reply #8671 on: February 08, 2018, 12:35:31 PM »

Dow Jones 🌠 hit by worst fall since 2008

Fedruary 5, 2018 17 minutes ago

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has plunged by nearly MORE THAN ;D a 1,000 points in the biggest one day falls since the financial crisis.

Credit where credit is due.

Call it the TRUMP SLUMP.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13977
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8672 on: February 08, 2018, 01:09:52 PM »
I just call 'em like I see 'em. I never said I couldn't be wrong. I never said I can read the future. But I can read a fucking chart. So can you.


Yeah, I have some money in the market (in Canada only btw, not the US, and it isn't a whole lot.). But that has nothing to do with me saying the term "market crash" is way premature.

I'm just reading charts. I see nothing about this chart that says anything more than correction.



This chart has bottomed and is trying to form a swing low. Unless we close below that intraday spike on Tuesday, there is no reason to expect another selling waterfall. If we have a close above that green line, the 10 day MA, we're off to the races again.

And although the 10yr UST made another spike since I first mentioned it, it has now formed a new lower high. It's running out of steam. I don't seem to be able to find a chart to post. They're all those interactive ones that don't copy well for a cut and paste.....but feel free to check it if you've a mind to. Follow this link and click on YTD at the top of the chart.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond-rate-yield-chart



« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 01:49:00 PM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12550
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #8673 on: February 08, 2018, 02:57:48 PM »


Trash indeed. Hyper hyperbole, headlines that never match the article, Clickbait personified, and your computer tilts out from the frigging viruses and malware you encounter.

Did you ever get yourself some decent anti-virus software? I remember back in the day you had some problems with malware. I assume you either got it fixed or got a new computer, but thought I'd ask.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Unmoored from Facts, Will EIA Projections Become Reality?
« Reply #8674 on: February 15, 2018, 01:59:14 PM »



Unmoored from Facts, Will EIA Projections Become Reality?

February 13, 2018  |  By Jules Kortenhorst Kieran Coleman

The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) should give anyone watching today’s energy markets a jolt of surprise. Not for projecting that U.S. energy demand will grow by an average of 0.4 percent per year after two decades of evidence to the contrary. Not for presenting major alternative scenarios only in the cases of cost and technology improvements in the oil and gas industries. But for exhibiting erroneous data about the costs of renewables, and for its simple and outdated outlook on how the market is changing and will in time transform.

The danger is that key decision makers will make decisions in accordance with an altogether different future than might otherwise result from current market activity. This risk stems from the agency’s opaque assumptions and modeling methodology, which have recently been the subject of significant criticism. In response, the EIA has sought to create a tenuous distinction between its “projections” and “forecasts” that requires mental acrobatics to accept—as do the annual outputs of its work.

Are We Looking at the Same Market?

In a two-part tragedy, incorrect initial positions go on to influence completely outdated expectations about the composition of the American energy landscape through 2050. To its credit, EIA analysts read the news (if selectively): the AEO projects that renewables will be among the fastest-growing segments in electricity generation markets. But the EIA assessment of generation costs across technology types in 2022 more closely resembles a copy-paste of renewables’ market data from back in 2015. It’s no wonder the EIA expects that policy will be the near-exclusive driver of renewables’ market growth, by way of state-enforced procurement requirements and federal tax credits.

EIA methodology is a key reason why the AEO’s citation of levelized costs (those upfront costs spread over an energy asset’s lifetime generation) seems so obsolete. Suffice to say that the EIA ignores the average results of recent tenders in the U.S. and elsewhere when compiling its forward-looking average price estimates. As a result, stagnating future prices—wind and solar are estimated to decline by only $3/MWh from 2019–2022, unsubsidized—underlie EIA’s projection that capacity installations over the same period will be only 60 percent of actual annual totals for the last two to three years.

In contrast, indicators over the past 18 months are regularly showing that large- and medium-scale solar and large-scale wind prices are far more competitive than marginal costs from traditional sources—especially when they are sited near to load, as most often only modular renewables can be. This, in turn, is enabling still-expensive storage to be coupled with renewables generation to firm supply for portions of the day and provide grid services in addition to those offered by renewables with smart inverters. Collectively, these trends indicate the rapid approach of widespread grid parity between traditional sources and less-intermittent clean energy generation.

International Markets Drive This Momentum

The EIA should look to real, current market dynamics to inform its initial positions. To start, the market is now global. Following leadership in early market development efforts by Europe and the U.S., countries like China, India, and Mexico have set their sights on securing sustainable economic development and near-term, cutting-edge jobs for their constituents. This motivates large-scale procurement of renewable energy that their domestic companies are simultaneously racing to manufacture and distribute, often with a boost in expertise and capital from established companies in developed markets.

Second, international markets are scaling—fast. As each large-scale procurement sees low bids from not one or two, but ten bidders, governments, companies, and communities are encouraged to go back to the market with more and larger tenders—even going so far as to free up capacity by canceling previously planned coal plants. Large, competitive procurements in LEDs, renewables, and now even electric vehicles ensure that buyers can leverage market forces and use existing expertise to innovate technology and delivery models that achieve step changes down the learning curve to reduce cost. Even though tenders may occasionally risk overestimating future cost declines, these are marginal in relation to their empowerment of cost reduction trends that are consistently more rapid than analysts expect.

Third, technology markets are converging to drive nonlinear deployment. Manufacturers of lithium-ion storage, for example, are serving multiple segments like electric vehicles and grid-scale storage; thus growth in any one segment will enable cost declines that support growth in others. Further, storage will support intermittent but predictable renewables generation, unlocking new customers’ interest and further deployment. As evidence of this trend, leading project developers in the U.S.—some of which are subsidiaries of traditional utilities hedging their bets—have merged traditionally separate teams to analyze, bid, and build integrated and technology-agnostic portfolios of cost-effective generation resources.

Together, market dynamics like these, missed by the EIA, tell us that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, and its claws inexorably stretch back into U.S. markets. In Colorado, Xcel’s all-source solicitation in late 2017 demonstrated just this, with one of the largest energy companies in the U.S. submitting a solar plus storage bid for $36/MWh based on the cost of components mostly built abroad. Attempts to wrestle it back in risk ceding the U.S. businesses’ cutting-edge innovation to foreign businesses in a global market estimated at $1 trillion per year by some of the world’s largest companies.

Reality

The EIA needs to start looking at current market offers and consistent patterns in actual deployment versus its historical forecasts. Only in this way will it start to come to grips with the real trends in the accelerating energy transition, and have the insight to be able to project or forecast the revolution that is coming. If not, it risks becoming totally irrelevant as a source of information and a poor guidance for business leaders and policy makers across the country.

https://rmi.org/news/unmoored-facts-will-eia-projections-become-reality/

Agelbert NOTE: The EIA is now a Trump TOOL of "alternative" facts.


Trump 🦀 EIA official 🦖 having some coffee:

Tomorrow is Yesterday...


Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
AI comes to off shore wind power 💨
« Reply #8675 on: February 21, 2018, 10:51:37 AM »


Recent Windpower Articles
֍ EU doubling renewables by 2030
֍ Siemens Gamesa secures 36-MW order for Bosnia wind farm
֍ Rocky Mountain Power selects four new projects for major wind & transmission expansion

֍ TransAlta acquires two construction-ready wind projects in U.S. Northeast
֍ Risky Business: Mitigating threats to onshore wind projects & portfolios
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 10:56:00 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your own weakness
« Reply #8676 on: February 22, 2018, 10:23:54 AM »

Quote
Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your own weakness

Quite often a mitigation skeptic will present an "argument" that would make sense if the science side would make it, but makes no sense from their side. Classics would be dead African babies or being in it for the money.

A more person example would be Anthony Watts, the host of mitigation skeptical blog WUWT, claiming that I have a WUWT fixation. Fixation champion Anthony Watts who incites hatred of Michael E. Mann on a weekly if not daily basis. That I write about his cesspit occasionally makes sense given that Watts claims to doubt the temperature trend from station measurements; that is my topic. WUWT is also hard to avoid given that PR professional Watts calls his blog "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate changes" to improve its standing with journalists and his blog is at least a larger one thus the immoral behavior of WUWT represents the mainstream of the political movement against mitigation.

You can naturally see this behavior as the psychological problem called "projection":
Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/08/karl-rove-strategy-weakness-of-mitigation-sceptics.html

Exxon 🦖 Sues Collection Of Figures 🕊🍀🌻 🌼 🌷🌱 Associated With Climate Change Lawsuits, Alleging Conspiracy

February 22nd, 2018 by James Ayre 

SNIPPET:

As you may recall, companies are now considered to have the same rights as humans from a legal standpoint in the US.

So, what can be made of the new lawsuits from Exxon? Just another spectacle for the public? Another way for the various “sports teams” that comprise most of what passes for politics these days to hoot and holler at each other? Another spectacle at the coliseum? Another way to curtail actual change and keep “business and usual” churning? Or is there more to it than that?

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/22/exxon-sues-collection-figures-associated-climate-change-lawsuits-alleging-conspiracy/

Agelbert NOTE: In other news that I am certain and I am sure could certainly not have anything to do with a CONSPIRACY of the Fossil Fuel Fascists working with our bought and paid for government to hide the truth about FRACKING POLLUTION, you may be intersted in reading this:

Emissions From Fracking 5 Times Higher Than Reported

February 22nd, 2018 by Steve Hanley

SNIPPET:

Natural gas is not a “bridge fuel to the future.” It is a death sentence for humanity. Think that is too strong? Think again. A new study by the Environmental Defense Fund finds that methane escaping from fracking operations in Pennsylvania “causes the same near term climate pollution as 11 coal fired power plants” and is “five times higher than what oil and gas companies report” to the state. A previous assessment by EDF last November found methane emissions escaping from oil and gas wells in New Mexico are “equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal fired power plants.”

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/22/emissions-fracking-5-times-higher-reported/


The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 10:25:32 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
a weakened ozone shield 251 million years ago drove the mass extinction of fores
« Reply #8677 on: February 24, 2018, 12:20:57 PM »
Ozone Shield NOT Safe Scientists Say   

Posted on February 14, 2018, by Radio Ecoshock

https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/02/ozone-shield-not-safe-scientists-say.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
I’m a climate scientist. And I’m not letting trickle-down ignorance 🦖 win.
« Reply #8678 on: February 25, 2018, 07:04:27 PM »
I’m a climate scientist. And I’m not letting trickle-down ignorance 🦖 win.

How to fight ⚡ the Trump 🦀 administration's darkness

By Ben Santer July 5, 2017

Ben Santer is a climate scientist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

SNIPPET 1:

I’ve been a mountaineer for most of my life. Mountains are in my blood. In my early 20s, while climbing in France, I fell into a crevasse on the Milieu Glacier, at the start of the normal route on the Aiguille d’Argentiere. Remarkably, I was unhurt. From the grip of the banded ice, I saw a thin slit of blue sky 120 feet above me. The math was simple: Climb 120 feet. If I reached that slit of blue sky, I would live. If I didn’t, I’d freeze to death in the cold and dark.

Now, more than 40 years later, it feels like I’m in a different kind of darkness — the darkness of the Trump administration’s scientific ignorance. This is just as real as the darkness of the Milieu Glacier’s interior and just as life-threatening. This time, I’m not alone. The consequences of this ignorance affect every person on the planet.

Imagine, if you will, that you spend your entire professional life trying to do one thing to the best of your ability. In my case, that one thing is to study the nature and causes of climate change. You put in a long apprenticeship. You spend years learning about the climate system, computer models of climate and climate observations. You start filling a tool kit with the statistical and mathematical methods you’ll need for analyzing complex data sets. You are taught how electrical engineers detect signals embedded in noisy data. You apply those engineering insights to the detection of a human-caused warming signal buried in the natural “noise” of Earth’s climate. Eventually, you learn that human activities are warming Earth’s surface, and you publish this finding in peer-reviewed literature.


SNIPPET 2:

You encounter valid scientific criticism. You also encounter nonscientific criticism from powerful forces of unreason🦖, who harbor no personal animus toward you but don’t like what you’ve learned and published — it’s bad for their 🦖 business 🦀.


SNIPPET 3:

Over time, the evidence for a discernible human influence on global climate becomes overwhelming. The evidence is internally and physically consistent. It’s in climate measurements made from the ground, from weather balloons and from space — measurements of dozens of different climate variables made by hundreds of different research groups around the world. You write more papers, examine more uncertainties and participate in more scientific assessments. You tell others what you’ve done, what you’ve learned and what the climatic “shape of things to come” might look like if we do nothing to reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. You speak not only to your scientific peers but also to a wide variety of audiences, some of which are skeptical about you and everything you do. You enter the public arena and make yourself accountable.

After decades of seeking to advance scientific understanding, reality suddenly shifts, and you are back in the cold darkness of ignorance. The ignorance starts at the top, with President Trump 🦀. It starts with untruths and alternative facts. The untruth that climate change is a “hoax” engineered by the Chinese. The alternative fact that “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real. These untruths and alternative facts are repeated again and again. They serve as talking points for other members of the administration. From the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, who has spent his career fighting climate change science, we learn the alternative fact that satellite data shows “a leveling off of warming ” over the past two decades. The energy secretary tells us the fairy tale that climate change is primarily due to “ocean waters and this environment that we live in.” Ignorance trickles down from the president to members of his administration, eventually filtering into the public’s consciousness.

Getting out of this metaphorical darkness is going to be tough.

Full article: 


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/05/im-a-climate-scientist-and-im-not-letting-trickle-down-ignorance-win/
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 07:12:04 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
... a few key pieces of pipeline news from last week are worth a revisit.
« Reply #8679 on: February 26, 2018, 03:24:40 PM »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.



Courts Questioning Trump’s 🦀 Pipeline Policies as Protesters 🕊 Face Fossil Fueled 🦖 Front Groups

As we hold on for dear life at the start of the second year of the Trump administration, the crazy wave of national news that breaks each week can feel overwhelming. But a few key pieces of pipeline news from last week are worth a revisit.

On Wednesday the 21st, a US District Court Judge ruled that the Trump administration needed to turn over documents explaining its decision to reverse course and approve the Keystone XL pipeline, or explain why that reasoning should be kept secret. The Obama administration spent years studying the pipeline’s impacts, and ultimately that body of evidence justified blocking the pipeline. But upon assuming office, President Trump almost immediately decided the opposite. Given that such decisions are required to be based on facts, what new evidence did the government suddenly find to change its mind so quickly?

As we’ve said before, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, federal decisions need to be based on science and facts. If not, they can be struck down in court for being “arbitrary and capricious,” a fancy way of saying something is done for political reasons that aren’t supported by the evidence.

For example, on Thursday, Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled that the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had to start enforcing a rule to limit methane waste from oil and gas operations on federal land. Judge Orrick allowed the lawsuit defending the waste prevention rule to proceed because BLM “relied on opinions untethered to evidence,” didn’t show their work to justify the decision, “and it is therefore arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the APA.”

Though Trump is in the process of deciding what to do about the rule, the judge’s order means the administration can’t keep procrastinating and must enforce the rule while they figure out what’s next. (In case you’re wondering what methane emissions might look like, the emissions from various facilities have been captured by Earthworks on infrared camera.

These are encouraging decisions, particularly in light of the fact that pipeline fights are still raging across the country with significant battles being played out locally. News broke last week per HuffPo’s Itai Vardi that a front group for natural gas and gas-heavy utility companies is masquerading as a “sustainable energy” organization. In a letter to Massachusetts Governor Baker, the Mass Coalition for Sustainable Energy argues for more natural gas pipelines as part of a climate solutions. It’s signed by the presidents of various mundane sounding business groups, like Boston and Springfield Chambers of Commerce. Not signing on, however, are some of the groups other funders, like Canadian pipeline company Enbridge, or the utilities Eversource and National Grid.

These companies are actively seeking new pipelines through Massachusetts. They’re funding the PR effort to get more pipelines. Why oh why wouldn’t they want their name on the coalition’s website, and on the letter to the governor? Surely a great mystery, that.  

Another totally unsolvable mystery? Why ALEC and pro-pipeline politicians are trying to get the Department of Justice to prosecute pipeline protesters as terrorists. Alex Kaufman at HuffPo explored last week how the “valve turners” who shut down a pipeline as an act of protest against climate change are being equated by the lawyers prosecuting them to the 9/11 hijackers and the Unabomber.

Who are these apparently terrifying terrorists the pipeline profiteers so gravely fear? Well, there’s Chief Avrol Looking Horse, who penned an op-ed last week about how the Standing Rock pipeline protests have gone global. He’s a Native American chief whose peaceful religious ceremonies are apparently a 9/11-scale threat.

Then there’s Danielle Pierre, a 16 year old whose op-ed last week on New Jersey’s pipeline fights is hardly the Unabomber’s manifesto.

But as we’re seeing with the #NeverAgain movement for gun control, maybe the oil and gas industry’s terror at the thought of a high school protester isn’t so arbitrary or capricious.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 03:26:53 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution


February 21, 2018
How Billy Graham 🐉 Evangelized for American Empire 🦖

Rev. Billy Graham gave his blessing to every military conflict under every president, from Truman to Bush II - Cecil Bothwell writes
By Cecil Bothwell

SNIPPET:

Born on a prosperous dairy farm and educated at Wheaton College, Graham first gained national attention in 1949 when the publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, searching for a spiritual icon to spread his anti-communist sentiments, discovered the young preacher holding forth at a Los Angeles tent meeting. Hearst wired his editors across the nation, “puff Graham,” and he was an instant sensation.

Hearst next contacted his friend and fellow publisher Henry Luce . Their Wall Street ally, Bernard Baruch , arranged a meeting between Luce and Graham while the preacher was staying with the segregationist Governor Strom Thurmond 🦀 in the official mansion in Columbia, S.Car. Luce concurred with Hearst about Graham’s marketability and Time and Life were enlisted in the job of selling the soap of salvation to the world. Time, alone, has run more than 600 stories about Graham.

The man who would become known as “the minister to presidents” offered his first military advice in 1950. On June 25, North Korean troops invaded South Korea and Graham sent Truman a telegram:

“MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS PRAYING GOD GIVE YOU WISDOM IN THIS CRISIS. STRONGLY URGE SHOWDOWN WITH COMMUNISM NOW. MORE CHRISTIANS IN SOUTHERN KOREA PER CAPITA THAN ANY PART OF WORLD. WE CANNOT LET THEM DOWN.”

It was the first time Graham encouraged a president to go to war, and with characteristic hyperbole: Korea has never topped the list of Christian-leaning nations. Subsequently, Graham gave his blessing to every conflict under every president from Truman to the second Bush, and most of the presidents, pleased to enjoy public assurance of God’s approval, made him welcome in the White House. Graham excoriated Truman for firing General Douglas MacArthur and supported the general’s plan to invade China. He went so far as to urge Nixon to bomb dikes in Vietnam—knowing that it would kill upward of a million civilians—and he claimed to have sat on the sofa next to G.H.W. Bush as the bombs began falling in the first Gulf War (though Bush’s diary version of the evening somehow excludes Graham, as does a White House video of Bush during the attack).

Full article:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=21188
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
100+ Cities Now Powered by at Least 70% Renewables ✨
« Reply #8681 on: February 27, 2018, 04:22:18 PM »
EcoWatch

100+ Cities Now Powered by at Least 70% Renewables  ✨ 🎋 🎍

February 27, 2018

By Lorraine Chow

A growing list of cities and municipalities is leading a renewable energy revolution that their national governments either cannot—or will not—address.

More than 100 cities around the world now get at least 70 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower, according to new research from the non-profit CDP. That's more than double the 40 cities reporting they were powered by at least 70 percent clean energy in 2015.

The list includes large cities with dense populations such as Auckland, New Zealand; Nairobi, Kenya; Oslo, Norway; Seattle, USA; and Vancouver, Canada.


Impressively, a remarkable 43 cities, including Burlington, Vermont; Reykjavik, Iceland; and Basel, Switzerland, are running on 100 percent renewables.

Burlington —Vermont's largest city, with a population of 42,000 people—became the first U.S. city to run entirely on renewable electricity back in 2015. The city gets all of its electricity from wind, solar, biomass and hydropower and even has its own utility and citywide grid.  

"We have seen first-hand that renewable energy boosts our local economy and creates a healthier place to work, live and raise a family," Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger said. "We encourage other cities around the globe to follow our innovative path as we all work toward a more sustainable energy future."

CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project, holds energy information on more than 570 of the world's cities. The research was released ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference in Edmonton, Canada on March 5, where city governments and scientific leaders will meet on the role of cities in tackling climate change.
In the U.S., roughly 58 cities and towns, including major metropolises like Atlanta and San Diego, are rejecting fossil fuels and have announced plans to run entirely on clean energy.

And with some 275 cities now reporting the use of hydropower, 189 generating electricity from wind and 184 using solar photovoltaics, CDP expects to see more cities around the globe join this important movement.

The CDP said that much of the drive behind city climate action and reporting comes from the 7,000-plus mayors that signed up to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and have pledged to act on climate change.

"Cities are responsible for 70 percent of energy-related CO2 emissions and there is immense potential for them to lead on building a sustainable economy," said Kyra Appleby, director of cities at CDP.

"Reassuringly, our data shows much commitment and ambition. Cities not only want to shift to renewable energy but, most importantly—they can. We urge all cities to disclose to us, work together to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and prioritize the development of ambitious renewable energy procurement strategies. The time to act is now."

You can find CDP's complete list below and learn more about the project here.

Akureyri, Iceland
Alba-Iulia, Romania
Alcaldía de Córdoba, Venezuela
Angra dos Reis, Brazil
Aparecida, Brazil
Aracaju, Brazil
Arendal, Norway
Aspen, USA
Assis, Brazil
Asunción, Paraguay
Auckland , New Zealand
Bærum Kommune, Norway
Bangangté, Cameroon
Basel, Switzerland
Belém, Brazil
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Birigui, Brazil
Bogotá , Colombia
Bolzano, Italy
Braga, Portugal
Brasília, Brazil
Brotas, Brazil
Brusque, Brazil
Burlington, USA 
Cabreúva, Brazil
Cajamar, Brazil
Campinas, Brazil
Campos de Goytacazes, Brazil
Canoas, Brazil
Capivari, Brazil
Cascais, Portugal
Caxias do Sul, Brazil
Cerquilho, Brazil
Chorrera, Panama
Curitiba, Brazil
Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania
Estância Climática de São Bento do Sapucaí, Brazil
Estância Hidromineral de Águas de São Pedro, Brazil
Estância Turística de Guaratinguetá, Brazil
Estância Turística de ITU, Brazil
Eugene, USA
Extrema, Brazil
Fafe, Portugal
Fernandópolis, Brazil
Florianópolis, Brazil
Foumban, Cameroon
Gladsaxe Kommune, Denmark
Goiânia, Brazil
Harare, Zimbabwe
Hobart, Australia
Ibagué, Colombia
Inje , South Korea
Jaboatão dos Guararapes, Brazil
Kapiti Coast , New Zealand
Kisumu, Kenya
Lausanne, Switzerland
León de los Aldamas, Mexico
Limeira, Brazil
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Lorena, Brazil
Maceió, Brazil
Mairiporã, Brazil
Medellín, Colombia
Moita, Portugal
Montes Claros, Brazil
Montreal, Canada
Nairobi, Kenya
Nakuru, Kenya
Niterói, Brazil
North Vancouver, Canada
Nova Odessa, Brazil
Nyon, Switzerland
Oristano, Italy
Oslo, Norway
Palmas, Brazil
Porto, Portugal
Prince George, BC, Canada
Quelimane, Mozambique
Quito, Ecuador
Reykjavík, Iceland
Salvador, Brazil
Santiago de Cali, Colombia
Santos, Brazil
São Caetano, Brazil
São Gonçalo, Brazil
São João da Boa Vista, Brazil
São José do Rio Preto, Brazil
São José dos Campos, Brazil
Seattle, USA
Stadt Zürich, Switzerland
Stockholm, Sweden
Tatuí, Brazil
Temuco, Chile
Uberlândia, Brazil
Vancouver, Canada
Vinhedo, Brazil
Vitória, Brazil
Wellington, New Zealand
Winnipeg, Canada


https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-cities-2540308563.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12550
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 100+ Cities Now Powered by at Least 70% Renewables ✨
« Reply #8682 on: February 28, 2018, 03:44:06 AM »
EcoWatch

100+ Cities Now Powered by at Least 70% Renewables  ✨ 🎋 🎍

https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-cities-2540308563.html

This is truly wonderful news. It's at least something.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
TESLA SEMI: WHAT WE (ACTUALLY) KNOW - by an expert at seven-figure purchases
« Reply #8683 on: February 28, 2018, 09:32:14 AM »
EcoWatch

100+ Cities Now Powered by at Least 70% Renewables  ✨ 🎋 🎍

https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-cities-2540308563.html

This is truly wonderful news. It's at least something.

:emthup: Here's more for you to enjoy just before "someone" gets on here and tries to trash Elon Musk (again).  ;)

TESLA SEMI: WHAT WE (ACTUALLY) KNOW

February 27th, 2018 by Frugal Moogal

Originally published on EV Obsession.

I’ve been reading EV Obsession and CleanTechnica for a while now, using it to help examine electric car costs and pricing to determine how these upcoming vehicles will impact us on a cost basis, and I have read article after article about the Tesla Semi. The articles followed a pattern that it seems like happens with every Tesla product: Tesla announces a product reveal, there are articles hypothesizing about what Tesla will do, then there are articles saying it isn’t possible, then there are articles saying that other companies will do it better before it comes out and no one will care.

Tesla held the Semi reveal event and of course the pattern restarted, now with two different products — the Semi and the Roadster.  The recent statement from Daimler’s head of trucks that the Tesla Semi defies the laws of physics is a continuation of this trend, and it convinced me to write.


Before I go on, I think it’s worth pointing out why I think what I’m about say has any value. The merits of EVs are often debated based on environmental friendliness metrics or what the sexiest ones can do.

Neither of those arguments really compel me at all.

Are EVs more environmentally friendly? Sure. But you know what is even more environmentally friendly? Not driving at all.

Are they sexier? Maybe. Tastes in cars vary, but I challenge anyone to look at an original Nissan Leaf and declare it a “sexy” car.


Take away those two arguments, and it’s where I come in. Ultimately, I believe it’s people like me who don’t look at those factors as to why EVs are about to dominate. But that’s for another time.

I worked at a big business with significant control over a multi-million dollar budget. I was at the table for seven-figure purchases with the other party promising us performance that competitors claimed impossible. I live in the world of stats and figures, and use them to sniff out what is possible.

With that, I want to stick the business lens on the Tesla Semi and make some predictions. And sorry, Daimler, I think you’ve been passed by.

When Musk first stated Tesla would make a long-haul Semi, the article pattern began. Then there was the reveal, complete with stats that seem almost cartoonish. The pattern restarted. We’re still hearing that the stats must be impossible.

Let’s back up and look at this like a business. I’m certain that the prototypes are the real deal, and the stats are conservative if anything. Here’s why:

Elon Musk cited the stats for the truck. I already hear those that question Tesla saying, “Yeah, Elon says a lot of things. So?” And to be honest, that’s true. Elon says things that he wants to do in Twitter a lot.

But this was different. If you were watching through Tesla’s website as he was saying it, information popped up to pre-order the truck.


If Musk said the truck would go 500 miles knowing it can’t, that is a textbook case of false advertising. All you need to prove false advertising is show that you were misled by the advertising and suffered “injury” as a result. Want an open-and-shut false advertising case? Buy a Tesla Semi, load it up, drive it on a 500 mile route, and have it run out of juice.

I expect that the semi will be able to go 500 miles at highway speed fully loaded. Not because Elon Musk said so, but because Elon Musk said so at a public event for the Semi where Tesla opened orders for the truck itself. You don’t name aspirational numbers at an event where you begin actively selling the product if you want your company to survive.

And before anyone says, “yeah, but they are selling fully autonomous driving without that capability yet,” yes, they are … but when you buy it, they tell you it is a feature that will be coming in the future, not when you get the car.

For the cost to operate per mile, electricity cost has been questioned as an “unrealistic” 7 cents per kWh. That might be unrealistic based on what you pay for your home electricity, but it was a guarantee. Another easy open-and-shut false advertising case.


I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty on why I’m sure the stats they showed undershoot the savings a Tesla Semi will achieve (they estimated diesel at $2.50 a gallon!), but suffice to say, businesses usually undershoot their claims or don’t make them at all. I’m sure DHL did the math when it said it expects to recover the premium on these trucks within 1.5 years.

Besides: Tesla is selling this product directly to a group of people like me who are going to run the numbers every which way and figure out if this is cheaper to use. Lying to us is a bad idea. Lie to us on something that is an open-and-shut false advertising case at your own peril.

There is still at least one mystery — it seems a battery breakthrough occurred. I’m banking on that already being true.

Before you read an(other) article that says that the batteries for the Semi and the Roadster are an aspirational goal that Tesla probably won’t hit, remember that Tesla started taking pre-orders for the Roadster at the exact same time. Something is up, or else Tesla just opened itself up for more false advertising claims, and those who can drop $50,000 to pre-order a car are in a group I’d not want to anger either.


If Tesla staked its future on aspirational claims, it is doing it with the two most dangerous groups. I tend to believe the pattern will hold, and the Tesla Semi is real, and it truly is a Beast. A Beast that is ready to save a lot of money.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/27/claims-tesla-semi-impossible-seem-illogical/
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 09:34:40 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11094
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
German Cities Allowed to Ban Diesel
« Reply #8684 on: February 28, 2018, 10:09:02 AM »
German Cities Allowed to Ban Diesel


 Cars using diesel fuel can now be banned from German cities to combat air pollution, the country's top court ruled on Tuesday. The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig said that the cities of Stuttgart--home to automotive giants Daimler and Porsche and one of the most polluted cities in the country--and Dusseldorf could impose "proportional" limits on certain diesel vehicles, effectively setting a precedent for cities to create their own rules for banning diesel engines.

One in three cars in Germany run on diesel, and the country ranks at the top of the EU for air pollution: 26 German cities routinely exceed EU air pollution limits.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-emissions/diesel-cars-can-be-banned-from-german-cities-court-rules-idUSKCN1GA2XD
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1283 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
276 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
238 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 04:20:30 PM
by azozeo