Download Form - The Renewable Energy Resource Center: Fill & Download for Free

VERY SLOWLY if you mean wind and solar alternatives. If you review total world energy consumption wind and solar at around 2% after trillions of money wasted on subsidies. The simple reason is intermittency that is easy to understand. There is no such thing as a stand alone wind or solar electricity plant. Any renewable plant must be coupled with a reliable coal, gas or oil partner plant so the electricity is produced every second 7/24 even when the wind does not blow or the sun shine.Wind turbines are yesterday’s technology abandoned 100 years ago from the farms for good reason.“The World Energy System”Every year energy use increases, and in 2018 the addition of fossil fueled primary energy outpaced that from renewables for the 3rd consecutive year.Fossil fuels accounted for 65% of electricity generation and the annual increase of fossil fueled electricity generation was 9% greater than the combination of hydro and renewables.The amount of CO2 released per unit of primary energy in 2015 was the same as that in 1995.* Post date December 7, 2019 (The World Energy System)**Chart 6. World primary energy supply by share in 2017 **(the share of marine energy is too small to show). Data: Calculated using IEA(2019) online free version. This dataset is the only available that shows all energy sources.The World Energy System (The World Energy System)CLIMATE NEWSENERGYGREEN TECHEntire state of South Australia has power black out because of flawed climate change energy policy4 years agoGuest BloggerGovernor Brown has California on same “dark ages” renewable energy path as South AustraliaGuest essay by Larry HamlinThe entire state of South Australia suffered a complete power black out on Wednesday September 28 plugging it’s nearly 1.7 million residents, communities and businesses into darkness.Loss of available power from transmissions lines feeding the region from other states coupled with South Australia’s ill-considered climate change energy policy of forced shutdown of the states operating coal plants to promote heavy use of renewable energy created this latest power debacle.The September 28 state wide black out is clearly creating challenges to the governments climate change policy initiative which is responsible for these power availability and high energy price debacles and which has jeopardized the power supply of the entire region. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-25/sa’s-power-price-spike-sounds-national-electricity-alarm/7875970)Unfortunately Governor Brown has California on the same path as the state of South Australia where the present and future reliability of the states power supply is undependebleSurprising science – There’s no such thing as clean energyMeticulous Research Review Questions Environmental Impacts and Feasibility of “Green Energy” TransitionCERESPublished: 16 September 2020A meticulous new review published in the scientific journal, Energies, conducted by a team of Irish and US-based researchers including CERES researchers, raises surprising and unsettling questions about the feasibility and the environmental impacts of the transition to renewable energy sources. Concern for climate change has driven massive investment in new “green energy” policies intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other environmental impacts from the fossil fuel industry. The world spent US$3,660 billion on climate change projects over the eight-year period 2011–2018. A total of 55% of this sum was spent on solar and wind energy, while only 5% was spent on adapting to the impacts of extreme weather events.Surprising environmental impactsThe researchers discovered that renewable energy sources sometimes contribute to problems they were designed to solve. For example, a series of international studies have found that both wind and solar farms are themselves causing local climate change. Wind farms increase the temperature of the soil beneath them, and this warming causes soil microbes to release more carbon dioxide. So, ironically, while wind energy might be partially reducing human “carbon emissions”, it is also increasing the “carbon emissions” from natural sources.Photographs showing two different kinds of “wake effect” at off-shore wind farms off the shores of Denmark. (a) Photograph by Christian Steiness shows the wake effect of cold humid air passing over a warmer sea surface, adapted from Figure 2 of Hasager et al. (2013), reproduced under Creative Commons copyright license CC BY 3.0. (b) Photograph by Bel Air Aviation Denmark – Helicopter Services shows the wake effect of warm humid air passing over a cooler sea surface, adapted from Figure 2 of Hasager et al. (2017). Reproduced under Creative Commons copyright license CC BY 4.0.Green energy technologies require a 10-fold increase in mineral extraction compared to fossil fuel electricity. Similarly, replacing just 50 million of the world’s estimated 1.3 billion cars with electric vehicles would require more than doubling the world’s annual production of cobalt, neodymium, and lithium, and using more than half the world’s current annual copper production.Solar and wind farms also need 100 times the land area of fossil fuel-generated electricity, and these resulting changes in land use can have a devastating effect on biodiversity. The effects of bioenergy on biodiversity are worse, and the increased use of crops such as palm oil for biofuels is already contributing to the destruction of rainforests and other natural habitats.Perplexing financial implicationsSurprisingly, more than half (55%) of all global climate expenditure in the years 2011‒2018 was spent on solar and wind energy ‒ a total of US$2,000 billion. Despite this, wind and solar energy still produced only 3% of world energy consumption in the year 2018, while the fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) produced 85% between them. This raises pressing questions about what it would cost to make the transition to 100% renewable energies, as some researchers suggest.As lead author Coilín ÓhAiseadha says: “It cost the world $2 trillion to increase the share of energy generated by solar and wind from half a percent to three percent, and it took eight years to do it. What would it cost to increase that to 100%? And how long would it take?”World energy consumption by source, 2018. Data from BP (2019).Daunting engineering challengesEngineers have always known that large solar and wind farms are plagued by the so-called “intermittency problem”. Unlike conventional electricity generation sources which provide continuous and reliable energy 24/7 on demand, wind and solar farms only produce electricity when there is wind or sunlight.“The average household expects their fridges and freezers to run continuously and to be able to turn on and off the lights on demand. Wind and solar promoters need to start admitting that they are not capable of providing this type of continuous and on-demand electricity supply on a national scale that modern societies are used to,” says Dr Ronan Connolly, co-author of the new review.The problem is not easily solved by large-scale battery storage because it would require huge batteries covering many hectares of land. Tesla has built a large battery to stabilize the grid in South Australia. It has a capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh and covers a hectare of land. One of the papers reviewed in this new study estimated that, if the state of Alberta, Canada, were to switch from coal to renewable energy, using natural gas and battery storage as back-up, it would require 100 of these large batteries to meet peak demand.Some researchers have suggested that the variations in energy production can be evened out by building continental electricity transmission networks, e.g., a network connecting wind farms in north-west Europe with solar farms in the south-east, but this requires massive investment. It is likely to create bottlenecks where the capacity of inter-connections is insufficient, and does not do away with the underlying vulnerability to lulls in sun and wind that can last for days on end.Hurting the poorestA series of studies from Europe, the U.S. and China shows that carbon taxes tend to lay the greatest burden on the poorest households and rural-dwellers.Although the primary motivation for green energy policies is concern over climate change, only 5% of climate expenditure has been dedicated to climate adaptation. Climate adaptation includes helpingdeveloping countries to better respond to extreme weather events such as hurricanes. The need to build climate adaptation infrastructure and emergency response systems may conflict with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because fossil fuels are generally the most readily available source of cheap energy for development.With regards to indigenous peoples, the review highlights the fact that all energy technologies can have severe impacts on local communities, particularly if they are not properly consulted. Cobalt mining, required to make batteries for e-vehicles, has severe impacts on the health of women and children in mining communities, where the mining is often done in unregulated, small-scale, “artisanal” mines. Lithium extraction, also required for manufacturing batteries for e-vehicles, requires large quantities of water, and can cause pollution and shortages of fresh water for local communities.As lead author, Coilín ÓhAiseadha, points out: “There was worldwide coverage of the conflict between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Dakota Access Pipeline, but what about the impacts of cobalt mining on indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and what about the impacts of lithium extraction on the peoples of the Atacama Desert? Remember the slogan they chanted at Standing Rock? Mni Wiconi! Water is life! Well, that applies whether you’re Standing Rock Sioux worried about an oil spill polluting the river, or you’re in the Atacama Desert worried about lithium mining polluting your groundwater.”Overview of the paperThe review, published in a Special Issue of the journal Energies on 16 September, covers 39 pages, with 14 full-color figures and two tables, detailing the breakdown of climate change expenditure and the pros and cons of all of the various options: wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels, bioenergy, tidal and geothermal. For the review, the researchers searched meticulously through hundreds of research papers published throughout the whole of the English-speaking world, in a wide range of fields, including engineering, environment, energy and climate policy. The final report includes references to 255 research papers covering all of these fields, and it concludes with a table summarizing the pros and cons of all of the various energy technologies. Research team members were based in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the United States.The review was published as an open-access peer-review paper and can be downloaded for free from the following URL: Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018 .The full citation is as follows: ÓhAiseadha, C.; Quinn, G.; Connolly, R.; Connolly, M.; Soon, W. Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018. Energies 2020, 13, 4839.Renewable energy companies are failing and not sustainable.Nottingham council 'sorry' as Robin Hood Energy collapsesRobin Hood Goes Belly Up: Green Energy Company Collapses, 230 Staff Lose Their JobsDate: 05/09/20BBC NewsA council has apologised after losing millions of pounds of public cash in the collapse of an energy company it started.Robin Hood Energy (RHE) is shutting with the loss of 230 jobs despite millions poured into it by Nottingham City Council.British Gas will take on its customer base of thousands of homes in England.The council said the sale will not make up all its losses, which leaked documents suggest are £38.1 million.Council leader David Mellen declined to say how much it stands to lose, saying the total from the sale will depend on how many customers switch to British Gas.However, leaked documents seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service suggest the taxpayers of Nottingham are out of pocket to the tune of £38.1 million.The confidential documents show the sale price for the customer base of RHE is estimated by the council to be around £26 million.The final exact figure will not be known until the transfer of customers to British Gas is complete, but the £38.1 million write-off is the council’s estimate.Robin Hood Energy (RHE) is shutting with the loss of 230 jobs despite millions poured into it by Nottingham City Council.British Gas will take on its customer base of thousands of homes in England.The council said the sale will not make up all its losses, which leaked documents suggest are £38.1 million.Council leader David Mellen declined to say how much it stands to lose, saying the total from the sale will depend on how many customers switch to British Gas.However, leaked documents seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service suggest the taxpayers of Nottingham are out of pocket to the tune of £38.1 million.The confidential documents show the sale price for the customer base of RHE is estimated by the council to be around £26 million.The final exact figure will not be known until the transfer of customers to British Gas is complete, but the £38.1 million write-off is the council's estimate.'Very sorry'Mr Mellen said: "There will be significant amounts of money we won't be able to recoup."Today my thoughts are particularly with those people facing a redundancy process."I'm very sorry that is the case, I don't hesitate to say sorry when we've got things wrong, my priority now is to get things right."Image captionThe city council said RHE customers do not need to take any action and will be contacted with more detailsThe company was set up in 2015 with the intention of tackling fuel poverty and claimed to be the first council-run energy company in the UK.But a recent report by auditors Grant Thornton found the company had struggled in the energy market, making losses every year it existed and becoming reliant on council cash.Their report showed the council had invested £43m into it and provided £16.5m of guarantees and accused the authority of "institutional blindness" for continuing to prop it up.Councillor Mellen said they "had to" stop supporting it "off the back of the people of Nottingham".AnalysisBy Hugh Casswell, BBC Radio Nottingham political reporterThis has been a disaster and an embarrassment for Nottingham City Council.At a time when they routinely criticise central government for a loss of funding, they've been publicly shamed for losing millions in taxpayer cash. What's more, they've had to accept it. No spin. No deflection. A straight and unavoidable mea culpa.One key question remains though - exactly how much has been lost? We may not know that for some time.And what do all those lost millions mean? Put simply, it's added to the council's need to make savings - a particularly bitter pill to swallow for council employees who may be facing redundancy and for Nottingham residents who may lose out from service cuts.Local government minister Simon Clarke said: "The people of Nottingham will be aghast at this disastrous waste of their hard-earned money."This will likely have stark consequences in the real world in terms of service cuts and job losses at Nottingham City Council."It is now for the council's leadership to decide whether they are the right people to continue to lead one of our most important cities."Robin Hood Energy supplied 10 council-run energy providers. According to the company, these are:Angelic Energy (Islington Council)Beam Energy (Barking and Dagenham Council)CitizEN Energy (Southampton City Council and neighbouring councils)Fosse Energy (Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City Council)Great North Energy (Doncaster Council & Barnsley MBC)The Leccy (Liverpool City Council)RAM Energy (Derby City Council)Southend Energy (Southend-on-Sea Borough Council)White Rose Energy (Leeds City Council )Your Energy Sussex (West Sussex County Council and local authorities)In total it supplied 112,000 people and 2,600 businesses.Every customer will now be automatically switched to British Gas, unless they opt to go elsewhere.British Gas announced they were buying the customer base, but not the rest of the company.Robin Hood Goes Belly Up: Green Energy Company Collapses, 230 Staff Lose Their Jobs - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)CAVEAT: Wind and solar are not renewable if you consider how they are manufactured.The myth of renewable energyBy Dawn Stover, November 22, 2011“Clean.” “Green.” What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about “clean energy,” some people think of “clean coal” and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout “green jobs,” they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. “Clean” and “green” are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that’s why they’re so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however.Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It’s an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: “Renewable energy comes from things that won’t run out — wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day — oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium.”Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there’s one big problem: Unless you’re planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed — not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:• Solar power. While sunlight is renewable — for at least another four billion years — photovoltaic panels are not. Nor is desert groundwater, used in steam turbines at some solar-thermal installations. Even after being redesigned to use air-cooled condensers that will reduce its water consumption by 90 percent, California’s Blythe Solar Power Project, which will be the world’s largest when it opens in 2013, will require an estimated 600 acre-feet of groundwater annually for washing mirrors, replenishing feedwater, and cooling auxiliary equipment.• Geothermal power. These projects also depend on groundwater — replenished by rain, yes, but not as quickly as it boils off in turbines. At the world’s largest geothermal power plant, the Geysers in California, for example, production peaked in the late 1980s and then the project literally began running out of steam.• Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium — rare earth metals that are rare because they’re found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.• Biomass. In developed countries, biomass is envisioned as a win-win way to produce energy while thinning wildfire-prone forests or anchoring soil with perennial switchgrass plantings. But expanding energy crops will mean less land for food production, recreation, and wildlife habitat. In many parts of the world where biomass is already used extensively to heat homes and cook meals, this renewable energy is responsible for severe deforestation and air pollution.• Hydropower. Using currents, waves, and tidal energy to produce electricity is still experimental, but hydroelectric power from dams is a proved technology. It already supplies about 16 percent of the world’s electricity, far more than all other renewable sources combined. Maybe that’s why some states with renewable portfolio standards don’t count hydropower as a renewable energy source; it’s so common now, it just doesn’t fit the category formerly known as “alternative” energy. Still, that’s not to say that hydropower is more renewable than solar or wind power. The amount of concrete and steel in a wind-tower foundation is nothing compared with Grand Coulee or Three Gorges, and dams have an unfortunate habit of hoarding sediment and making fish, well, non-renewable.All of these technologies also require electricity transmission from rural areas to population centers. Wilderness is not renewable once roads and power-line corridors fragment it. And while proponents would have you believe that a renewable energy project churns out free electricity forever, the life expectancy of a solar panel or wind turbine is actually shorter than that of a conventional power plant. Even dams are typically designed to last only about 50 years. So what, exactly, makes renewable energy different from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power?Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But meeting the world’s total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today’s largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That’s a heckuva lot of neodymium.Unfortunately, “renewable energy” is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven’t discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.The only genuinely sustainable energy scenario is one in which energy demands do not continue to escalate indefinitely. As a recent commentary by Jane C. S. Long in Nature pointed out, meeting ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gases cannot be accomplished with “piecemeal reductions,” such as increased use of wind power and biofuels. Long did the math for California and discovered that even if the state replaced or retrofitted every building to very high efficiency standards, ran almost all of its cars on electricity, and doubled its electricity-generation capacity while simultaneously replacing it with emissions-free energy sources, California could only reduce emissions by perhaps 60 percent below 1990 levels — far less than its 80 percent target. Long says reaching that target “will take new technology.” Maybe so, but it will also take a new honesty about the limitations of technology. Notably, Long doesn’t mention the biggest obstacle to meeting California’s emissions-reduction goal: The state’s population is expected to grow from today’s 40 million to 60 million by 2050.There are now seven billion humans on this planet. Until we find a way to reduce our energy consumption and to share Earth’s finite resources more equitably among nations and generations, “renewable” energy might as well be called “miscellaneous.”The myth of renewable energy - Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsWORLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION GROWTH IS FOSSIL FUELS NOT WIND AND SOLARNot possible to imagine a world where wind solar really matter as alternatives to fossil fuels. The hope seems just a pipe dream when after a trillion or more in subsidies they do not exceed 2% of world energy consumption.The evidence of excessive consumer costs when renewables are added is well documented and I submit this factor alone means renewable energy future is dim. Wind and coal are coupled to ensure reliable power as this next photo shows. How is that renewable power when it depends on coal?Wind turbines in Europe, with a coal power plant in the distance.Ina Fassbender/ReutersThese Countries Have The Highest Energy Usage Per PersonTHE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING RENEWABLES CAUSE HIGH RETAIL ELECTRICITY RATESSOUTH AUSTRALIA, DENMARK and GERMANY have the most investment in wind and solar renewables for its grid and the highest cost electricity as a result. It is a matter of math renewables demand two producers one unreliable (wind and solar) and one fully reliable (fossil fuels)Electricity prices in selected countries 2018Published by N. Sönnichsen, Aug 25, 2020This statistic shows electricity prices in leading economies worldwide in 2018. In the United States, electricity prices stood at 0.13 U.S. dollars per kilowatt hour. In the United Kingdom, electricity users paid 0.22 U.S. dollars per kilowatt hour.Electricity prices in selected countriesElectricity prices by country can vary widely and even within a country itself, depending on factors like infrastructure and geography. Among developed countries, Sweden enjoys some of the cheapest electricity in the world. For global electricity prices, Germany topped the list of countries with the highest electricity prices worldwide in 2018. German customers were charged around 0.33 U.S. dollars per kilowatt hour plus value added tax.The selection of fuels used to generate electricity remains a main driver behind Italy’s high electricity prices. There are no nuclear power plants in the country. Due to the fact that Italy is located in a seismically active area, all nuclear power plants were closed following a popular referendum in the late 1980s, when an explosion in Chernobyl reminded Europeans of the dangers of nuclear power. As a result, the country’s electricity generation mix consists mainly of natural gas, renewable energy, petroleum products and coal. Although Italy has one of the largest proved natural gas reserves in Europe, the Mediterranean country produces very little natural gas and is heavily dependent on imports. The main source countries for Italian natural gas imports include Algeria, Russia and Libya. In light of political instability in the said countries, Italy might turn to producing more electricity from renewable energy sources, including hydropower, geothermal power and solar electricity. In 2017, Italy’s cumulative solar photovoltaic capacity reached 19.7 gigawatts, making it the fifth largest market for solar PV power.Read moreGlobal electricity prices in 2018, by select country(in U.S. dollars per kilowatt hour)Electricity prices around the world 2018 | StatistaThese graphs tell the story as more renewables go into the grid the price of electricity goes up. Why? Intermittency of wind and solar require backup of fossil fuel reliability.It is a big mistake to look at wind and solar in isolation from their effect on installed power where the intermittency hits the consumer hard with dramatically increased costs.Research in the UK shows that thanks to expensive subsidies for renewables seniors must decide whether to heat or eat. This is horrible and in addition these subsidies for renewables do nothing for the climate.Coal Rush: China, Japan & India Back Coal-Fired Future With Hundreds of New PlantsAugust 5, 2020 by stopthesethings 2 CommentsReports of the ‘death’ of coal have been greatly exaggerated, with the economic powerhouses of Asia – China, Japan and India – building new plants hand over fist.The pattern across Asia is unmistakable; unreliable wind and solar have been snubbed in favour of coal-fired power plants, with new nuclear plants running a close second.Don Dears takes a look at the resurgence of coal as the power source of choice in any country serious about delivering reliable and affordable electricity to businesses and households.Don’t Ignore CoalPower for USADonn Dears14 July 2020Don’t ignore coal. Other countries aren’t.In fact, the new high efficiency low emission (HELE), ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants are being built in China, Japan, India, and elsewhere.These power plants operate at very high temperatures and pressures, with an efficiency of 45% HHV. This compares with the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants in the US that have an average efficiency of 33% HHV.This means that pollutants from HELE power plants are 45% lower than from existing coal-fired power plants while CO2 emissions are cut even more.Countries that are rich in coal, but lack plentiful, cheap natural gas, are finding that coal is the cheapest, most reliable source of electricity, other than hydro, they can have.Wind and solar don’t come close, especially when they need expensive storage. For more information go to: Coal and the future of EnergyJapan is planning to build 22 HELE plants, largely to replace the nuclear power plants shut down after the Fukushima disaster.China has plans to build over 300 HELE plants, some in China and the remainder in other countries around the world.The fact is, China is tearing down its subcritical and supercritical coal-fired power plants and replacing them with new HELE, ultra-supercritical power plants.The United States could benefit by doing the same thing, but EPA regulations prohibit building HELE coal-fired power plants in the US.Replacing existing supercritical coal-fired power plants in the United Sates with HELE plants would reduce CO2 emissions, while also reducing pollutants such as particulates.These power plants would provide baseload, reliable power, 24/7/365 at a cost lower than the cost of building a like amount of wind and solar together with their accompanying storage.The HELE coal-fired power plant would last for at least 60 years, while the wind and solar installations would have to be replaced every twenty years, and their batteries would have to be replaced every ten years.In addition, the HELE coal-fired power plants would generate over twice as much electricity.The reason? HELE plants have a capacity factor of 85%, while wind has a capacity factor of 35%, and PV solar has a capacity factor of, at best, 22%.The United States is blessed with a large amount of low-cost natural gas which allows the building of power plants even more efficient than HELE plants, but efforts to prevent building natural gas pipelines and preventing Fracking could mean that HELE plants could be competitive in some areas of the United States.Coal shouldn’t be ignored anywhere in the world where HELE ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants can be built.Power for USAIsogo Power Plant, Japan: cleanest coal-fired pow­er plant in the world.Coal Rush: China, Japan & India Back Coal-Fired Future With Hundreds of New PlantsMexico Says “Hasta La Vista” To Inefficient Green Energies. Could Be “Death Knell” For Renewables”By P Gosselin on22. May 2020German public broadcasting Deutsche Welle (DW) here reports how Mexico has decided to end its transition the renewable energies, angering activists and investors.The move, DW reports, “is scaring off environmentalists and investors” and could be the “death knell for renewable energies.”Apparently President Andrés Manuel López Obrador had traveled to Oaxaca and saw how the local hills were blighted by wind turbines, commenting: “These windmills are spoiling the landscape” and “produce very little energy.”Wind energy is notorious for its inefficiency, unreliable supply, high costs, blight to the environment and health hazards. Moreover, the business has been taken over by crony capitalists out to make a killing on the massively subsidized projects. In fact, as Michael Moore’s latest film shows, green energies aren’t really green at all.The move by the Mexican government has angered green energy activists and investors. Another reason cited by the Mexican government is “grid instability”.The reform will have some impact on German investors, DW reports. For example: the Potsdam-based company Notus, who since 2014 has been planning five solar and wind power plants. Now their future remains uncertain.“The new directive could be the death knell for renewable energies,” DW reports. “Protest letters from the Canadian and European Union embassies refer to 44 ongoing projects worth USD 6.8 billion.” Another problem is Mexico’s power grid is not designed to handle the massively fluctuating power fed in by wind and sun.Though DW suggests that the return to fossil fuels is going to mean higher costs for Mexican consumers, most results from around the world suggest the opposite is the case. Germany, for example has committed a whopping 1 trillion dollars to green energies since 2000, yet today the country has among the world’s most expensive electricity prices for consumers. Annually tens of thousands of households see their power cut off because they can no longer afford to pay the power bills.Mexico is wise to move to a source of energy that is plentiful, affordable, stable and one that doesn’t destroy the environment on a massive scale.Mexico Says “Hasta La Vista” To Inefficient Green Energies. Could Be “Death Knell” For Renewables”The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant ToMichael Shellenberger ContributorEnergyI write about energy and the environment.“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” reports... [+]DER SPIEGELOver the last decade, journalists have held up Germany’s renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world.“Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset,” thanks to the Energiewende, wrote a New York Times reporter in 2014.Most Popular In: EnergyGuyana’s Election Controversy Threatens Its Energy FutureWith Germany as inspiration, the United Nations and World Bank poured billions into renewables like wind, solar, and hydro in developing nations like Kenya.But then, last year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments. It announced plans to bulldoze an ancient church and forest in order to get at the coal underneath it.After renewables investors and advocates, including Al Gore and Greenpeace, criticized Germany, journalists came to the country’s defense. “Germany has fallen short of its emission targets in part because its targets were so ambitious,” one of them argued last summer.“If the rest of the world made just half Germany’s effort, the future for our planet would look less bleak,” she wrote. “So Germany, don’t give up. And also: Thank you.”But Germany didn’t just fall short of its climate targets. Its emissions have flat-lined since 2009.Now comes a major article in the country’s largest newsweekly magazine, Der Spiegel, titled, “A Botched Job in Germany” ("Murks in Germany"). The magazine’s cover shows broken wind turbines and incomplete electrical transmission towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” write Der Spiegel’s Frank Dohmen, Alexander Jung, Stefan Schultz, Gerald Traufetter in their a 5,700-word investigative story.Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.“The politicians fear citizen resistance” Der Spiegel reports. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”In response, politicians sometimes order “electrical lines be buried underground but that is many times more expensive and takes years longer.”As a result, the deployment of renewables and related transmission lines is slowing rapidly. Less than half as many wind turbines (743) were installed in 2018 as were installed in 2017, and just 30 kilometers of new transmission were added in 2017.Solar and wind advocates say cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will make the future growth in renewables cheaper than past growth but there are reasons to believe the opposite will be the case.It will cost Germany $3-$4 trillion to increase renewables as share of electricity from today's 35%... [+]AG ENERGIEBINLANZENDer Spiegel cites a recent estimate that it would cost Germany “€3.4 trillion ($3.8 trillion),” or seven times more than it spent from 2000 to 2025, to increase solar and wind three to five-fold by 2050.Between 2000 and 2019, Germany grew renewables from 7% to 35% of its electricity. And as much of Germany's renewable electricity comes from biomass, which scientists view as polluting and environmentally degrading, as from solar.Of the 7,700 new kilometers of transmission lines needed, only 8% have been built, while large-scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. “A large part of the energy used is lost,” the reporters note of a much-hyped hydrogen gas project, “and the efficiency is below 40%... No viable business model can be developed from this.”Meanwhile, the 20-year subsidies granted to wind, solar, and biogas since 2000 will start coming to an end next year. “The wind power boom is over,” Der Spiegel concludes.All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?The Question of TechnologyThe earliest and most sophisticated 20th Century case for renewables came from a German who is widely considered the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century, Martin Heidegger.In his 1954 essay, “The Question Concerning of Technology,” Heidegger condemned the view of nature as a mere resource for human consumption.The use of “modern technology,” he wrote, “puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such… Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium…to yield atomic energy.”The solution, Heidegger argued, was to yoke human society and its economy to unreliable energy flows. He even condemned hydro-electric dams, for dominating the natural environment, and praised windmills because they “do not unlock energy in order to store it.”These weren’t just aesthetic preferences. Windmills have traditionally been useful to farmers whereas large dams have allowed poor agrarian societies to industrialize.In the US, Heidegger’s views were picked up by renewable energy advocates. Barry Commoner in 1969 argued that a transition to renewables was needed to bring modern civilization "into harmony with the ecosphere."The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment.Bookchin admitted his proposal "conjures up an image of cultural isolation and social stagnation, of a journey backward in history to the agrarian societies of the medieval and ancient worlds."But then, starting around the year 2000, renewables started to gain a high-tech luster. Governments and private investors poured $2 trillion into solar and wind and related infrastructure, creating the impression that renewables were profitable aside from subsidies.Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk proclaimed that a rich, high-energy civilization could be powered by cheap solar panels and electric cars.Journalists reported breathlessly on the cost declines in batteries, imagining a tipping point at which conventional electricity utilities would be “disrupted.”But no amount of marketing could change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.Efforts to export the Energiewende to developing nations may prove even more devastating.The new wind farm in Kenya, inspired and financed by Germany and other well-meaning Western nations, is located on a major flight path of migratory birds. Scientists say it will kill hundreds of endangered eagles.“It’s one of the three worst sites for a wind farm that I’ve seen in Africa in terms of its potential to kill threatened birds,” a biologist explained.In response, the wind farm’s developers have done what Europeans have long done in Africa, which is to hire the organizations, which ostensibly represent the doomed eagles and communities, to collaborate rather than fight the project.Kenya won't be able to “leapfrog” fossil fuels with its wind farm. On the contrary, all of that unreliable wind energy is likely to increase the price of electricity and make Kenya’s slow climb out of poverty even slower.Heidegger, like much of the conservation movement, would have hated what the Energiewende has become: an excuse for the destruction of natural landscapes and local communities.Opposition to renewables comes from the country peoples that Heidegger idolized as more authentic and “grounded” than urbane cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as signs of virtue.Germans, who will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related infrastructure by 2025, express great pride in the Energiewende. “It’s our gift to the world,” a renewables advocate told The Times.Tragically, many Germans appear to have believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. “Germans would then at last feel that they have gone from being world-destroyers in the 20th century to world-saviors in the 21st,” noted a reporter.Many Germans will, like Der Spiegel, claim the renewables transition was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant ToAuthor Steve Goreham discusses the costs of wind and solar being added to the grid and how consumers pay in two ways – for subsidies and through much higher electricity rates. In the US, electric power rates in 9 of 12 wind states went up 12 to 35% from 2008 to 2015, while in the same time overall US power prices rose only 4.8%. He explains that South Australia is now seeing wide area blackouts due to unreliability related to wind power on the grid and simultaneous coal phase-out. Steve’s full presentation can be seen at: Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy: https://youtu.be/mtHreJbr2WMBill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’February 18, 2019 by stopthesethings 41 CommentsBill says it’s time to stop jerking around with wind & solar.When the world’s richest entrepreneur says wind and solar will never work, it’s probably time to listen.Bill Gates made a fortune applying common sense to the untapped market of home computing. The meme has it that IBM’s CEO believed there was only a market for five computers in the entire world. Gates thought otherwise. Building a better system than any of his rivals and shrewdly working the marketplace, resulted in hundreds of millions hooked on PCs, Windows and Office. This is a man that knows a thing or two about systems and a lot about what it takes to satisfy the market.For almost a century, electricity generation and distribution were treated as a tightly integrated system: it was designed and built as one, and is meant to operate as designed. However, the chaotic delivery of wind and solar have all but trashed the electricity generation and delivery system, as we know it. Germany and South Australia are only the most obvious examples.During an interview at Stanford University late last year, Bill Gates attacks the idiots who believe that we’re all just a heartbeat away from an all wind and sun powered future.Gates on renewables: How would Tokyo survive a 3 day typhoon with unreliable energy?Jo Nova BlogJo Nova14 February 2019Make no mistake, Bill Gates totally believes the climate change scare story but even he can see that renewables are not the answer, it’s not about the cost, it’s the reliability.He quotes Vaclav Smil:Here’s Toyko, 2p7 million people, you have three days of a cyclone every year. It’s 23GW of electricity for three days. Tell me what battery solution is going sit there and provide that power.As Gates says: Let’s not jerk around. You’re multiple orders of magnitude — … — That’s nothing, that doesn’t solve the reliability problem.During storms, clouds cut solar panel productivity (unless hail destroys it) and wind turbines have to shut down in high winds.The whole interview was part of a presentation at Stanford late last year:Cheap renewables won’t stop global warming, says Bill GatesThe interview by Arun Majumdar, co-director of Stanford Energy’s Precourt Institute for Energy, which organized the conference, can be watched here.When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: “Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?”“The idea that we have the current tools and it’s just because these utility people are evil people and if we could just beat on them and put (solar panels) on our rooftop—that is more of a block than climate denial,” Gates said. “The ‘climate is easy to solve’ group is our biggest problem.”If he only looked at the numbers in the climate science debate…Jo Nova BlogBill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’

Yes, electric vehicles are no threat to oil producers. Think about why is big oil now supporting e-vehicles and renewables ? The simple fact is that these faulty technologies boost demand and profits for the conventional oil and gas industry.“ ..as more wind parks are installed across the Earth’s pristine landscapes, more fossil fuel energy sources are needed to back them up (Marques et al., 2018).In order for solar and wind technologies to grow their market share, fossil fuel technologies will necessarily be needed to grow alongside them. This is referred to as the “renewable energy policy Paradox” (Blazquez et al., 2018).”Do you think big oil is a charity or has gone soft and is really joining the radical green deal to save the environment? No, in a market economy everyone looks after themselves within the law. It is energy consumers that the Biden / Trudeau climate plan will harm far more, while big oil prospers.Big oil has recognized a surprising bonanza by supporting intermittent wind and solar non renewable renewables because theses renewables need big oil to survive.This gives the old oil industry a much longer future than imagined before politics and government science interfered and propped up these flawed technologies with foolish subsidies.Big oil companies like BP“Big Oil” may very well be on the same side as those championing (perceived) global warming solutions. It’s just that each side may not be promoting wind and solar energies for the same reasons.”Research posits that Petroleum products will increase by 17.9% by 2040, yes increase along with a 28% increase in total energy consumption most of it going to fossil fuels at 77% and renewables far behind at 22%.Do you think after 4 years of the Democrat’s Climate plan that the US will enjoy the lowest cost electricity as above?The real story is so contradictory and ironical that it will be the stuff of many Hollywood movies, but who is the bad guy? I think Michael Moore knows the answer.“Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s supposedly a gift to Big Oil”Maybe, but not for the attack on renewable manufacturing rather because producers win and consumers are on the wrong end of this energy stick.WAKE UP CALL - “Without coal and oil, wind and solar will be impossible.”“The renewable energy policy ParadoxRenewable reviewsVolume 82, Part 1, February 2018, Pages 1-5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.002Get rights and contentAbstractOne major avenue for policymakers to meet climate targets is by decarbonizing the power sector, one component of which is raising the share of renewable energy sources (renewables) in electricity generation.However, promoting renewables --in liberalized power markets-- creates a paradox in that successful penetration of renewables could fall victim to its own success. With the current market architecture, future deployment of renewable energy will necessarily be more costly and less scalable. Moreover, transition towards a full 100% renewable electricity sector is unattainable. Paradoxically, in order for renewable technologies to continue growing their market share, they need to co-exist with fossil fuel technologies. Ignoring these findings can slow adoption and increase the costs of deploying new renewable technologies.This paper spots the incompatibility between electricity liberalization and renewable policy, regardless of the country, location or renewable technologies. The Paradox holds as long as market clear prices with short term marginal costs, and renewable technology's marginal cost is close to zero and not dispatchable.”The renewable energy policy Paradox‘Big Oil’ Now Promotes Renewable Energy – Wind & Solar Spur GROWTH In Fossil Fuel Energy GenerationBy Kenneth Richard on30. May 2019While it may seem counterintuitive, the expansion of wind and solar energy necessarily leads to the preservation and eventual growth in fossil fuel energy generation. This “paradox” hasn’t gone unnoticed. As good business practice, fossil fuel companies are now actively advocating for and investing in wind and solar technologies.In an analysis of energy return on investment , the installation of solar photovoltaics (PV) ultimately results in a net energy loss (Ferroni and Hopkirk, 2016). This is significantly due to the associated intermittent (and thus unreliable) availability, requiring backup from sources that provide continuous, all-day-long energy (gas, coal, nuclear, etc.). Solar energy investment therefore leads to a greater dependence on fossil fuel energies.Likewise, as more wind parks are installed across the Earth’s pristine landscapes, more fossil fuel energy sources are needed to back them up (Marques et al., 2018).In order for solar and wind technologies to grow their market share, fossil fuel technologies will necessarily be needed to grow alongside them. This is referred to as the “renewable energy policy Paradox” (Blazquez et al., 2018).Image Sources: Ferroni and Hopkirk, 2016, Marques et al., 2018, Blazquez et al., 2018Fossil fuel companies have certainly recognized the capacity for wind and solar energy to benefit them financially.BP, for example, proudly acknowledges they are “partnering” their gas with solar and wind, or “using gas to complement the intermittency of renewables”.Simply put, wind and solar energies are helpful to fossil fuel companies both for public relations purposes and for growing their bottom line.Image Source: BPExxon is now investing in wind and solar too.Image Source: HPPR.orgShell is putting $2 billion into solar and wind technologies as well.Image Source: GreenTechMedia.comChevron has added an entire renewable energy division and operates wind farms and solar projects.Image Source: ChevronWith their growing advocacy for solar and wind energy, the characterization of fossil fuel companies as the enemies of “green” or climate change-friendly technologies seems to be increasingly unsupportable.“Big Oil” may very well be on the same side as those championing (perceived) global warming solutions.It’s just that each side may not be promoting wind and solar energies for the same reasons.Image Source: Teklu, 2018CAVEAT: Wind and solar are not renewable if you consider how they are manufactured.The myth of renewable energyBy Dawn Stover, November 22, 2011“Clean.” “Green.” What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about “clean energy,” some people think of “clean coal” and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout “green jobs,” they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. “Clean” and “green” are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that’s why they’re so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however.Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It’s an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: “Renewable energy comes from things that won’t run out — wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day — oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium.”Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there’s one big problem: Unless you’re planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed — not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:• Solar power. While sunlight is renewable — for at least another four billion years — photovoltaic panels are not. Nor is desert groundwater, used in steam turbines at some solar-thermal installations. Even after being redesigned to use air-cooled condensers that will reduce its water consumption by 90 percent, California’s Blythe Solar Power Project, which will be the world’s largest when it opens in 2013, will require an estimated 600 acre-feet of groundwater annually for washing mirrors, replenishing feedwater, and cooling auxiliary equipment.• Geothermal power. These projects also depend on groundwater — replenished by rain, yes, but not as quickly as it boils off in turbines. At the world’s largest geothermal power plant, the Geysers in California, for example, production peaked in the late 1980s and then the project literally began running out of steam.• Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium — rare earth metals that are rare because they’re found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.• Biomass. In developed countries, biomass is envisioned as a win-win way to produce energy while thinning wildfire-prone forests or anchoring soil with perennial switchgrass plantings. But expanding energy crops will mean less land for food production, recreation, and wildlife habitat. In many parts of the world where biomass is already used extensively to heat homes and cook meals, this renewable energy is responsible for severe deforestation and air pollution.• Hydropower. Using currents, waves, and tidal energy to produce electricity is still experimental, but hydroelectric power from dams is a proved technology. It already supplies about 16 percent of the world’s electricity, far more than all other renewable sources combined. Maybe that’s why some states with renewable portfolio standards don’t count hydropower as a renewable energy source; it’s so common now, it just doesn’t fit the category formerly known as “alternative” energy. Still, that’s not to say that hydropower is more renewable than solar or wind power. The amount of concrete and steel in a wind-tower foundation is nothing compared with Grand Coulee or Three Gorges, and dams have an unfortunate habit of hoarding sediment and making fish, well, non-renewable.All of these technologies also require electricity transmission from rural areas to population centers. Wilderness is not renewable once roads and power-line corridors fragment it. And while proponents would have you believe that a renewable energy project churns out free electricity forever, the life expectancy of a solar panel or wind turbine is actually shorter than that of a conventional power plant. Even dams are typically designed to last only about 50 years. So what, exactly, makes renewable energy different from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power?Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But meeting the world’s total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today’s largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That’s a heckuva lot of neodymium.Unfortunately, “renewable energy” is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven’t discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.The only genuinely sustainable energy scenario is one in which energy demands do not continue to escalate indefinitely. As a recent commentary by Jane C. S. Long in Nature pointed out, meeting ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gases cannot be accomplished with “piecemeal reductions,” such as increased use of wind power and biofuels. Long did the math for California and discovered that even if the state replaced or retrofitted every building to very high efficiency standards, ran almost all of its cars on electricity, and doubled its electricity-generation capacity while simultaneously replacing it with emissions-free energy sources, California could only reduce emissions by perhaps 60 percent below 1990 levels — far less than its 80 percent target. Long says reaching that target “will take new technology.” Maybe so, but it will also take a new honesty about the limitations of technology. Notably, Long doesn’t mention the biggest obstacle to meeting California’s emissions-reduction goal: The state’s population is expected to grow from today’s 40 million to 60 million by 2050.There are now seven billion humans on this planet. Until we find a way to reduce our energy consumption and to share Earth’s finite resources more equitably among nations and generations, “renewable” energy might as well be called “miscellaneous.”https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/30/big-oil-now-promotes-renewable-energy-wind-solar-spur-growth-in-fossil-fuel-energy-generation/CONCLUSIONUncle Remus story about a doll made of tar and turpentine used by the villainous Br'er Fox to entrap Br'er Rabbit. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes.I submit jumping on the wind and solar intermittent band wagon hoping to get rid of the villainous Br'er Fox oil industry failed because the more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes in the tar.If it wasn’t so sad for consumers it would laughable because the more left managed government science tries to get rid of the villainous oil industry with such flawed schemes as intermittent wind and solar, the more oil becomes entangled with them and profitable.This chart puts a political spin on rising gas prices capturing the adverse impact on consumers of the new Biden government energy policy in the USA.Part of River Thames freezes amid sub-zero temperaturesSection of river at Teddington Lock, west London, transformed into an ice skating rink for local bird lifeThe section of the Thames at Teddington Lock has water flowing more slowly and is more susceptible to icing over. Photograph: Andrew Fosker/Rex/ShutterstockIn scenes reminiscent of the Great Freeze of 1963, part of the River Thames froze over as temperatures in Britain plummeted to sub-zero temperatures this week.The iconic Little Ice Age is a significant period in climate history often illustrated by beautiful art showing skating on the River Thames.Climate Change is not a problem: Unless we make it one.Guest Post by Martin Capages Jr. PhD PEINTRODUCTIONAs long as humans have been on Earth, they have been adapting to changes in regional climates. A regional climate is the average of the weather for a relatively long period of time, usually 30+ years, at a particular location on the planet. The natural periodicity of prolonged regional weather variations has been documented in various ways by humans for eons. For a comparison of human civilization in the northern hemisphere to Greenland ice core temperatures for the last 18,000 years see here. Some of the means of documenting changes in long term weather patterns, i.e. climate change, include crude prehistoric cave drawings of the animals and plants, paintings of frozen rivers (see Figure 1 of ice skating on the River Thames in 1684), and archaeological digs. There are also written records of climatic conditions as early as 5,000 years ago, perhaps even earlier. Ice, subsea, peat and lake bed cores are also used, for a more detailed discussion of the methods used see here and the links therein.Figure 1. Ice skating on the River Thames in London in January 1684, during the Little Ice Age. Museum of London, link.Most geologists agree that we are currently in an extended ice age. Technically we are in an “icehouse” condition (see here). When ice caps exist on one or more poles year-round for an extended period of time, the Earth is said to be in an icehouse. Global temperature may decrease further if the solar activity remains at its current low level (see here). But geologists deal in massive time increments of thousands, millions even billions of years. The general public makes its observations in decades, perhaps a generation and maybe even in a century, but not much more than that. Such a myopic view of the Earth’s climate can be misleading.CLIMATE SCIENCEClimate science is a combination of many scientific specialties such as geology, geophysics, astrophysics, meteorology, and ecology just to name a few of the larger branches. Some of these scientists are working to develop computer models of the climate using atmospheric physics, chemistry, actual data, proxy data, empirical variables and assumed constants. The models include statistical tools to present the results in the form of projections of measurable parameters, one of these is the global mean temperature. These projections are presented in time increments that mean something to the public. Dr. Judith Curry has written a good overview of computer climate modeling that can be downloaded here.To gain an understanding of the regional climate that preceded humankind, we have to get creative. That means using proxies to determine the average temperature and perhaps life conditions in earlier years. The two most cited proxies are ice cores and tree rings, but there are other lesser known proxies. In addition, we can also make reasonable assumptions about the prehistorical past with observations of regional geology. For example, glacier movements are revealed by the scars and strange debris fields that are left with each glacial expansion and retreat. Great boulders are left in the middle of grassy plains as glaciers melt. Gravel placed by high velocity melt water rivers can even reveal the dynamics involved, perhaps even provide a timetable for the events. These points are made just to illustrate the importance of the geological perspective in understanding why the climate changes. It is, after all, the physical record.Many scientists, across many disciplines, have made their career goals the understanding of these worldly and sometimes outer-worldly events. Some of these scientists have developed hypotheses that they defend with great vigor which is, of course, understandable. There is peer admiration, public recognition and research funding available when one’s hypotheses prove to be correct. But there is a danger in pushing any hypothesis beyond its limits. And that may be the case of the proponents of the singular CO2 driven global warming hypothesis.THE DISAGREEMENTInstead of following more traditional methods of analyzing data acquired through research, noting some phenomenon, developing an hypothesis that might explain the phenomenon, then publishing the research and the scientific conclusions to get the scrutiny of peers in that particular field of research, the CO2warming proponents appear to have started with an hypothesis. The hypothesis was that “humankind’s accelerated use of fossil fuels had led to an increase in average global temperature by adding more CO2to the atmosphere and enhancing the Green House Gas effect.” This is easily seen in the stated objective of the United nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):“UNFCCC’s ultimate objective is to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.” LinkIn other words, they assumed that stabilizing the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration would prevent climate change, they did not prove this assertion first. The previous hypothesis had been that aerosols would cause a cooling of the average global temperature and lead to a new massive glacial advance or “Ice Age.” The media sometimes calls a major glacial advance an “ice age,” but we are already in an ice age and have been for millions of years. Some say the new ice age predictions in the 1970s were in the minority and erroneous. They claim there was no consensus on global cooling, Link. Others say there was a consensus, Link. Then the impact of chlorofluorohydrocarbons (CFCs) on the ozone layer became the new major focus. A damaged ozone layer could increase solar radiation and lead to more cancer, animal blindness and plant withering, Link.Consensus among scientists means nothing. Proposing that a consensus exists by distilling published papers means absolutely nothing. Getting scientists together for an open discussion, presenting one’s hypothesis, showing the proof, then having a robust debate followed by an open show of hands may be a better way to define a scientific consensus, but even that could be biased by the quality of the presentations and the presenters involved.ROOT CAUSES FOR DISAGREEMENTResearch funding has always been the result of patronage, both private and governmental. An individual researcher must have some sort of sustenance to survive. If successful in the research, that scientist will attract more funding than the competition in the same field. The attraction to the funders of that successful research may be in public prestige received or there may be a purely economic or even military advantage for the patron, politician or governmental entity. Most research is performed by academia. Many, if not most, of the governmental agencies funding research, are pressured by political entities to fund research that supports a political agenda. Government funding injects politics into scientific research and can make research outcome oriented. Today, there is little research based on scientific curiosity. Most research is agenda-driven and based on the biases of the funding source and the biggest source is the government. That has led to the climate change debacle the world now faces.The actual climate change that will occur will be revealed at the pace that nature allows. Unfortunately, adapting to these changes takes time and resources. Understanding the causes of climate change may lead to decisions to take measures to mitigate the change or to adapt in advance of the climate change. The underlying assumption is that the projected climate change will have a negative impact on humans or even end humankind. So, the research has been directed at mathematical models of the climate centered on producing projections of global average temperature over time and comparing temperature to CO2 concentrations. These projections have actually been of the positive or negative deviation of the temperature above or below a selected historic baseline. While this is a valid and well accepted manner to display projections, the selection of historic baseline can distort the public’s perception of the change.These dynamic, mathematical models must use the power of digital computer programming to produce temperature projections in a reasonable time frame. There are many constants and variables that are fed into the models. Both the equations, the input constants and variables can be “tweaked” to generate projections until the projections can hindcast the majority of the historical record with some accuracy. Typically, data samples are not absolute but introduce a range around some point of reference. This departure from the norm requires the introduction of probability and statistics to represent a range of values. Temperature varies with latitude and elevation, so temperature anomalies must be computed at as many places around the Earth as possible and then the anomalies are averaged. Each projection consists of bands of departures from the specific reference point. The plots are not absolute temperature versus time but the “temperature anomaly” above and below as many base lines. But matching history requires controls and record keeping on the tweaks to the constants, variables and the equations themselves.Figure 2. The upper graph shows the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projections of temperature (red and blue lines) without any man-made CO2, just natural forces. The lower graph shows projections (again in red and blue) including man-made CO2. The black line in both graphs are the observations. The blue and yellow very fine lines are the individual model runs that are averaged to make the blue and red lines. Source, IPCC WG1, AR5, FAQ 10.1, page 895, link.In Figure 2 we see the result. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, uses models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3 in 2010 and CMIP5 in 2014). The computed uncertainty in these estimates of global temperature change since 1860 are shown in blue and yellow. As the graphs show, the uncertainty range is larger than the deviation since 1860. The lower bound in 2000 overlaps the upper bound in 1860 in the lower graph. Since 2000, the observations have been fairly flat, as shown by the black line. In the upper graph, which is supposed to show only natural influences on climate change, the projections are flat, except for large volcanic eruptions, which decrease global temperatures. The authors want us to believe that none of the global warming in the past 150 years is natural? Did they assume this? Or do they know this? It is unclear. For a fuller discussion of Figure 2, see here.The data itself must be distilled down. To then develop a projection of the results and keep it clear of bias, probabilistic techniques such as a Monte Carlo methodology are employed. These are computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results. The underlying concept is to use randomness to solve problems that might be deterministic in principle. Many climate change scientists have relied on Monte Carlo methods in the probability density function analysis of radiative forcing. Unfortunately, the actual data set adjustments and model “tweaking” have raised concerns about possible bias in the projections.Furthermore, the equations used in the millions of lines of software code may contain errors. Computer simulations provide a means to test hypotheses but do not provide “proof.” That is why computer projections must never be considered “settled science” or confused with observations. It is dangerous to do so. (Curry 2017) Link.CARBON, CARBON DIOXIDE AND “BIG OIL”The problem we have today is the divisive manner used by the scientists who are proponents of the “CO2 control knob” for global mean atmospheric temperature. Their computer models yield results that show a significant increase in the average global temperature by 1.1 to 4.2 degrees C (Link, figure 1) by the year 2100. That could be a problem perhaps, if it actually occurs. While the actual effect of a 4-degree temperature rise is unknown, it is assumed that it would be a bad thing and that assumption is widely believed. The “CO2 control knob” proponents (see here for an example), henceforth called “Alarmists” have declared that the doubling of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause a global temperature increase of 4.5-degrees C (Link) by the end of the 21st Century, 80 years from now. They have recommended reducing, or even eliminating the use of fossil fuels which they believe is the primary cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 from around 300 parts per million or 300 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Age to today’s level of over 400 ppm.Fossil fuels have always been referred to in the media in the pejorative and associated with “Big Oil”, another pejorative reference. The truth is that the use of fossil fuels has exponentially improved the ability of humans to flourish and Big Oil has been the means for that flourishing to take place. Big Oil has done some wasteful and selfish things and deserves some criticism. But Big Oil is not an evil entity, it is a business, a business of large and smaller corporations with shareholders, executives and employees, just like the Silicon Valley technical giants. Even the real Big Oil, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC, performs in the manner of a large corporation. The problem with Big Oil is that it has never been able to “stick up for itself.” It has even needed the help of “outsiders” to voluntarily join the battle on its behalf. Luckily, a few outsiders have decided to do that; however, it may be too late to change public perception of the fossil fuel energy industry (Epstein 2014) Link. On the other hand, Silicon Valley has no such handicap as yet, but there is some negativism building with respect to privacy concerns and monopolistic behavior of the Tech Giants.THE UNITED NATIONS EFFECTThe United Nations has exploited the negative view of fossil fuels to enhance its role and power in global affairs. Others have supported the CO2 argument to enhance their opportunistic investments in alternative energy sources with the exception of nuclear and hydro-electric power. Hydro-electric is a non-carbon, reliable renewable while nuclear is non-carbon and near-renewable due to its availability and energy density. These two alternative sources have been opposed by anti-humanity environmental extremists. These combined negative forces have generated very slick UN Proposals for Policy Makers that are based on the singular premise that the global temperature is increasing at an alarming rate, the root cause is the increase in atmospheric CO2due to the use of fossil fuels, and that the entire world should participate in reducing human-caused CO2emissions to zero.But what if the temperature increase is not due to increased human generated CO2 levels?What if the computer models projecting an increasing global average temperature are wrong? Are all the computer models based on the same general hypothesis? If so, are they just tweaking constants and variables to match the history? And, what exactly does a 1 degree or even 3 degree C temperature rise mean?RESEARCH ANSWERSWe need to get the answers to these questions. Who can provide these answers? There are many scientists and engineers who are knowledgeable in the physics and the chemical processes that set the boundaries for climate science. Many of the scientists are retired members of academia with years of experience in research, others are retired from large corporations that have their own research organizations. There are also scientists and engineers that have performed advanced research in government facilities, including military research. Current climate research is being performed at the public and private universities, corporations and in government laboratories. In the United States alone, the GAO estimates the government has spent over $107 billion dollars on climate research from 1993 to 2014 Link. By far, most of the funding originates with governments. The government-academia research complex and rotating door has coopted research. Projects that fit social agendas are approved while more practical research languishes. Private research is denigrated by the government supported researchers.Scientists in academia keep a scorecard on their performance called peer-reviewed publications. Successful publications lead to more funding for more research as well as increased faculty prestige. High performers are rewarded and protected by their employers, primarily the universities. High performers are also recruited by the university alumnae since this maintains the prestige of the institution, their alma mater. These are all normal and understandable factors. Competition between universities and even between corresponding researchers in the different institutions generally leads to an increased understanding of the science.Unfortunately, the proponents of the “CO2 control knob” theory, the “Alarmists”, are dominant in mass media communications and on social media platforms. They have also established control of the research publications issued by various scientific organizations by serving as subject matter expert editors. For a discussion of these problems see The Center for Accountability in Science here. There are even specialized websites and blogs that provide only the “Alarmists” view and that launch attacks on questioners of the orthodoxy, the “deniers.” “Deniers” is a pejorative term that should not be used in this context, it would be better to use the term “Skeptics.” The “Skeptics” have less organized funding than the “Alarmists.” Both of these terms, Skeptics and Alarmists, have about the same level of negative connotation so they will be used in the following paragraphs, no offense intended to anyone.The nature of the current disagreement is unfortunate, and it is seriously affecting scientific discourse. Science advances through hypotheses, research and experiments to test the hypotheses, and a robust defense against the skeptics of the hypotheses. But today skeptics are attacked through insidious means, including personal attacks, limitations on publications, and media blitzes. Even the very best scientists, emeritus professors from prestigious universities, some even experts in the field of climatology, are demeaned by the Alarmists if they even comment on a particular hypothesis or question the physics in the computer models. There are also many retired scientists including geologists and geophysicists, who have questioned the hypothesis but have few resources now as they have left academia or the corporate world. Some of these skeptics have organized to counter the United Nations effort by organizing the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change and publishing skeptical reports, see here.WAIT A WHILEThe overall solution to this climate conundrum may be to just “wait a while.” Today we have satellites continually measuring both surface and atmospheric temperatures 24/7 all over the globe. We also have detailed records of regional weather events in many parts of the world that can be used to infer climatic change. And it is changes in regional climates that effect humans. Regional climates have been changing for eons. And, we know the impact on humankind, in the past, as a result of those changes. We can use common sense to determine what to do to adapt to possible future climate changes.We should also wait until we know if additional CO2 is good or bad. There is a lot of evidence that additional CO2 is currently a benefit and surprisingly little that it is bad, see here for a discussion.ALL CLIMATE CHANGE IS LOCALSo, what causes a regional climate to change? It is likely not completely due to the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. A regional climate is just that, climate that is specific to a region. A change in wind and ocean currents can change the humidity over any particular region, making it wetter or drier. If it is over a cold area, perhaps there will be more snow and ice for longer periods or just the opposite. It may expand a desert or create a rain forest. We have a fairly lengthy record of regional climate changes. The causes of these changes are much more complex than the effect of a minor greenhouse gas on the average global temperature. The wind and ocean current changes are driven by uneven heating, not a single digit global temperature increase. The uneven heating is due to clouds, the amount of water vapor, the earth’s changing elliptical orbit around the sun, the earth’s obliquity and rotational precession, and the earth’s rotation itself (which creates night and day). The sun even has a variable output. For a discussion of these long-term effects on our climate see these posts by Javier (here and here)We also know that humanity has and will continue to have an impact on the world’s environment, mostly through agriculture and development that both require massive sources of energy. As the population continues to increase, the production of food must also increase. This brings up the subjects of population control measures, genetically modified crops, land use and many more. Without GMO measures, we would not be able to feed the current world population. That is just a fact. Unsound environmental policies that restrict the removable of dead shrubs and undergrowth as well as irrational restrictions on irrigation have contributed significantly to the wildfires in California and Australia and have reduced crop production. Continued residential and commercial developments in the flood plain and along coastlines are going to increase the adverse effects of any sea level rise, regardless of the amount of the rise or “apparent” rise. Sea level rise and land subsidence look the same to the casual observer but subsidence of land due to tectonics and water mismanagement are very real. The latter may be something we can do something about.Mitigation (reducing CO2 ) is not the only way to combat climate change and it may not even work. Each community has its own climate change threats, sea level rise, changes in precipitation, storms, etc. These climate changes may be natural or man-made or both, we just don’t know. Each community can use modern technology and fossil fuels to adapt. They can build sea-walls like Galveston or The Netherlands. They can store water or improve drainage. Local adaptation is easier, cheaper and less risky than trying to change the whole world economy.RECOMMENDATIONWhat we need to do is wait a while. Work together and stop the scientific infighting. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is going to continue to increase because China and India are burning more fossil fuels. Africa will be next. They have to in order to feed their populations. And if the temperature continues to rise a little more, it will most likely be beneficial to the planet in general, so long as China and India control the real problems of fossil fuel combustion, SO2 and NOx (and a few others, but not CO2). If it gets colder, not warmer, then we will have to burn more carbon-based fuel to stay warm and that might also raise the global temperature, or so I’ve heard.ReferencesEpstein, Alex. 2014. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. New York: Penguin Group. Link.May, Andy. 2018. CLIMATE CATASTROPHE! Science or Science Fiction? The Woodlands, Texas: American Freedom Publications LLC. Link.The Center for Acountability in Science. “Government-funded Science.” accountablescience.com. Accessed February 4, 2020. Link.#climate-changeClimate Change is not a problem: Unless we make it one.Wait awhile and yes the evidence of runaway global warming has run away.The earth is cooling with bitter winter weather and this is boon to oil and gas as the severe weather takes wind and solar out of commission - with zero energy output.Extreme Weather GSMTHE ARCTIC HAS DESCENDED: SNOWSTORMS AND ICE BRING MUCH OF EUROPE TO A STANDSTILLFEBRUARY 8, 2021 CAP ALLON1 COMMENTGermany, the Netherlands, and the UK are just three of the nations buffeted by the big freeze, with Scotland, after nearly two months of sub-zero temps, on for one of its “longest spells of cold snowy weather this century.”READ MOREExtreme Weather“RARE” SNOWFALL HITS MAUI FOR FOURTH YEAR IN A ROWFEBRUARY 5, 2021 CAP ALLON0 COMMENTOn average, snow in Maui occurs once every 5 years, but flakes have now settled in 2021, 2020, 2019, and 2018–with 2019’s flurries going down as the Hawaiian archipelago’s lowest elevation snowfall in recorded history, at 6,200ft.READ MOREExtreme Weather GSMHISTORIC ARCTIC BLASTS ARE ABOUT TO ENGULF NORTH AMERICA, EUROPE, AND ASIA SIMULTANEOUSLY: GRAND SOLAR MINIMUMFEBRUARY 4, 2021 CAP ALLON0 COMMENT‘This’ is the reality of our climate. Reject all claims of “settled science” and “consensus”–there are no such things.READ MOREArticles GSMACCORDING TO THE SATELLITES, EARTH HAS COOLED RAPIDLY DURING THE PAST 2 MONTHSFEBRUARY 3, 2021 CAP ALLON1 COMMENTOur planet is colder TODAY than it was during much of the 2010s, the 2000s, large portions of the 1990s, as well as late-1987–and cooling!

Nothing. Mills just provided, August, 2019, the fourth item that the theory allowed to be developed, and the second item being scrutinized for procurement or lease by the USA Department of Defense."Department of Defense has a Suncell running on its premises as a licensee":by July 21, 2019:according to Navid Sadikali(CEO at The End Of Petroleum) in the first segment at time stamp 0:00 to 17:45 on a talk show at r/BrilliantLightPowerthen scroll down to "End Of Petroleum talks Hydrino Energy - Live on Freedom Talk Live July 21, 2019"UPDATE: I (Frank Acland Moderator at E-Cat World.com) have received the following message from Navid Sadikali:“Request: please modify the article. My interview stated these facts.1) The SunCell is running.2) The DOD is a licensee through ARA.3) The DOD was onsite to see the SunCell.”It is finally happening, the Suncell is being scrutinized towards being leased by a commercial or military client.I communicated with Navid, several months ago. In a radio cast, he mentions something about Brett's book about Mills: "Randell Mills and The Search for Hydrino Energy" at time stamp 2:36 "we wrote about him"..:One of several books about Mills and the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics.I have been asked what I am doing to get GUT-CP accepted by the academics in physics. Navid is the one who might be actually doing something about that. By joining forces, that is what will break through the impasse formed by the physics community against GUT-CP and the device on Brilliant Light and Power and on sites such as Evaco LLC as well.GUT-CP is not cold fusion. CF and LENR try to explain their mechanisms using Standard Quantum Mechanics and are all full of various hypotheses that lead nowhere. GUT-CP is purely classical and has three items fully developed1)in 1986 the explanation for the DoD for how their Free Electron Laser works2) in 2007 developed process for manufacturing accordingto the predictions of GUT-CP, diamond thin film for such uses as as a scratch proof cover on cell phones or tablets and as a heat sink substrate on circuit mother board for chip components3) 2012 developed the Millsian® molecular modeller, available for free trail use by download, 100 times more accurate than any similar app made using SQMand at least 3 more items in development, one of which is the Suncell, which is being scrutinized by the USA DoD:4) finished proof of pronciple for the SUncell in 2000, and thefully functional and finely tuned and controlled version in May 2020, the Suncell the second item being considered by the DoD for procurement or lease, which item is being developed based on the predictions of GUT-CP,5) the Hydrino, fully validated in April -May 2020 is patented in many processes and devices since 2000 and is used as the mechanism that drives the Suncell:Randell L. Mills Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications6) the end point device using the Suncell’s ash, Hydrino’s or dark matter, from which indestructible plastics are being developed for us in the structure of that end point item and which end point item is to be powered by the first viable antigravity device, which is being developed by Huub Bakker of Massey University, NZ , in collaboration with Randell L. Mills, which device was patented as :FIFTH-FORCE APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROPULSIONWO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force - Google Patentswhich antigravity device is mentioned in general terms in a university lecture at time stamp 00:29:08:20161019 Introduction to the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics_001What are all those patents validations and experiments and fully developed and commercially used items, if not proof or at least some indication of the accuracy of using GUT-CP and the Hydrino as a subset or prediction made since 1999, under that theory?The case for Millsian physicsNASA Takes a Flyer on Hydrinosfresno state lecture randell millsAs an update, this answer was flagged by someone hostile to the theory of Mills and tried to have this answer collapsed. This answer was eventually allowed to stay un-collapsed, since the one complaining did not provide a specific reason to have the answer censored.This attempt at censoring this answer begs the question, why? If the theory is as bad as some claim, or even a scam, why are not other, equally suspect theories not being attacked so strongly. Yet Mills theory is the only theory so singled out for strong censoring. The reason is that GUT-CP presents a threat to the some that are using SQM to make large incomes or gaining prestige, as in developing such devices and or related experiments, as controlled fusion and quantum computing. Both are dead end projects since the physics used, to develop these, is itself a dead end. In the Sun it is gravity that draws nucleons together, exactly centre on centre, very easily to very successfully attain fusion, while the nucleons in Earth based devices are pushed together, using magnetic confinement, which ends up doing something like trying to push wet noodles together; in quantum qbits, these particles always de-cohere a fraction of a second after the device starts to “compute” actually ending in non-computing anything. This is due to all devices using SQM, as a guide, which guide is based on imagined then assumed and therefore, at based are non-existant mechanism of waves. This was a mechanism that was then just a lucky guess about a seemingly viable mechanism that seemed to explain the 2 slit experiment. Then, using what was basically a wild guess, to be the base on which SQM has laid its foundation on. It seems to explain the 2 slit experiment, in the same way that square wheels might have been considered towards building a car, at at a time when wheels were an unknown. Then, finding the square wheels seemed worked ok if pushed hard enough, was decided on for use in building a car on top of that. Later, when industry was starting to get under way, cars were seen as having the potential of being developed for rapid transportation, but the cars are found to be difficult to move at the required speeds. Instead of looking back through its development, to find where the problem might be, the wheels are considered as off limits for such scrutiny and instead the motor is considered as the most likely place for finding the problem. The motor is looked at to see how to make it more and more powerful to make the car go as fast as the transportation needs require. This is similar to what is being considered currently, to find out why qbit are decohering, then using the qbits in a different, more robust way. This, as if the problem started with the qbits themselves, and not at an earlier development in SQM when waves were an assumed mechanism, that was assumed to exist in trying to explain the 2 slit experiment. The solution, in SQM, is then to attempt to make the qbits ever more robust, with current efforts ending making large complex devices that try to ensure the qbits do not decohere.This has resulted in quantum computing having purported successes in developing all of the peripheral items, such sotware, fudiciary concerns, building being funded and built for research into quantum computing, andall the rest, except for the hardware, circuit try in electronic chips that houses and makes up the q-bits themselves. It might be better to look all the way back to where the problem is known to have a big assumption involved, when waves were accepted as the best explanation for just one particular experiment. That was at the time when qbits and their use was not even dreamed of, but the waves were ok'd for use everywhere and in an inviolable way.I did all of the surveying of the topic completely independent of Mill and his associates. I read copies of all the original papers and people at the institutions where all of the original data and records and peer reviewed papers involved originate then read those papers and communicated with theose weho were closest related to those papers or who had access to the original records relating to such sources, to get at their side of the story in all this.The sources I have used are:L. A. Rozema, A. Darabi, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, Y. Soudagar, A. M. Steinberg, “Violation of Heisenberg’s Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 – Published 6 September 2012; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 189902 (2012)Thomas E. Stolper, mathematician and Political analyst and Author of “America’s Newton, The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context”,Herman Haus, Institute profesor of Electronic Engineering,(1986). "On the radiation from point charges". American Journal of Physics. 54 (12): 1126–1129. Bibcode:1986AmJPh..54.1126H which paper was given to Mills by Haus used to develop the same model of the electron as developed by HausThe USA Department of Defense, and physics academia which accepted the FEL explanation provided by Haus,Philip Payne, Principal Scientist, Princeton University, Physicist in charge of using the topological predictions of the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics for use in developing the Millsian Molecular Modeller,Brett Holverstott: Science Philosopher, head of the development team of the Millsian Molecular ModellerGerrit Kroesen, Professor of Plasma Physics, Eindhoven Technologicl University, independently tested the Hydrino reaction and found no explanation for the reaction using SQM,NASA independently tested the hydrino reaction by sub contract to:Anthony J. Marchese, a mechanical engineering professor specializing in propulsion at Rowan University, with the conclusion being indeterminate of the cause of the reaction. “ From what I can tell from BlackLight's studies – and they've been pretty good about letting others outside verify their excess energy – there are some things going on that people are having trouble understanding.”Marchese, a PhD engineer from Princeton, says NASA granted him the money to study the feasibility of the BlackLight Rocket for six months. None of the NASA money will go to Mills or BlackLight Power, Marchese says, and his work will be done independently.Marchese's colleague at the Rowan College of Engineering, associate professor of electrical engineering Peter Mark Jansson, researched the BlackLight process while employed by Mills' backer Atlantic Energy, now part of the utility Conectiv.Besides Conectiv, Mills other subsidiaries using the theory are Evaco LLC, and Millsian Corp. The main company Brilliant Light and Power is growing exponentially since then.Scams just die out and disappear after getting a few million dollars and its perpetrators also disappear.Mills is still around and has all the earmarks of someone very successful, and well liked by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, who themselves granted him a few million dollars. Chambers of commerce are made up of people who are not known to be taken in by any kind of scams, but are on the other hand always ready to promote any business that has shown great promise in producing successful goods and services to the local community, over a long period of time and which businesses are headed by equally good willed people. In the case of BrLP those people are:DAVID BENNETTMr. Bennett was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2018.Consultant – Strategic management consulting for growth businesses in aerospace, transportation and alternative energy field. Focused on startups through mid-sized firms.Mr. Bennett was CEO of Proterra electric bus startup and led the firm from prototype design through national validation and successful commercial launch. Raised funds from key investors, including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, GM Ventures, and Mitsui & Co. Global Investment.Mr. Bennett worked with Eaton for ten years in a series of operating and corporate roles. His most recent roles were VP Business Development Industrial Sector and President Eaton’s Vehicle Group in Asia Pacific. The Vehicle Group AP business, headquartered in Shanghai, has operations in five countries providing full design, product development, production, sales and service solutions for a wide range of automotive and commercial vehicle customers.Previously, Mr. Bennett held a variety of general management positions in Europe and North America for the Truck business. He was also a general manager in Eaton Aerospace.Prior to joining Eaton in 2001, Mr. Bennett worked with Honeywell (formerly AlliedSignal) and General Electric in a variety of general management, operational, program management and technical roles for high technology aerospace and industrial businesses.Mr. Bennett holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and materials from Duke University and a master’s degree in business administration from Drexel University.Emilio Icaza ChavezMr. Icaza Chavez was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2018.Mr. Icaza Chavez is a co-founder and current Chairman of the Board of Aspel, a Mexico-based company which is the market leader in small business accounting software both in Mexico and in Colombia. Telmex bought an initial stake in Aspel in 2000; since then the relationship has evolved and Grupo Financiero Inbursa now owns a majority stake in Aspel.From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Icaza Chavez worked at GBM, one of the top brokerage houses in Mexico, where he was Co-Executive Director, in charge of Corporate Finance, Research and Investor Relations.In addition to his continued role at Aspel, Mr. Icaza Chavez co-founded Fusion de Ideas in 2008, a Private Equity investment vehicle with current investments in Energy, Software, Real Estate Development, Food, and other industries.Mr. Icaza Chavez is the main shareholder of Enextra Energía, a Mexican corporation which has signed a licensing agreement with Brilliant Light Power, Inc. to serve energy customers in certain industries within the Mexican Territory.Mr. Icaza Chavez was awarded a bachelor’s degree in business administration at Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM) in Mexico City.JEREMY HUXMr. Hux was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2016.Mr. Hux is President of HCP Advisors, based in San Francisco, California. For nearly 20 years, he has advised Technology and Clean Technology companies on equity, debt, and strategic transactions.Prior to HCP Advisors, Mr. Hux spent nine years with Credit Suisse. He was a Managing Director and Global Head of Credit Suisse’s Clean Technology Investment Banking practice. In addition to running the Clean Technology effort at Credit Suisse, he worked extensively with semiconductor and storage companies. Mr. Hux joined Credit Suisse after approximately eight years with Morgan Stanley. At Morgan Stanley, he was Head of West Coast Clean Technology and also advised companies across the technology spectrum, including storage, networking, hardware, semiconductors, and contract design and manufacturing. Prior to Morgan Stanley, he advised Media and Entertainment companies at SG Cowen.Mr. Hux earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and History from Vanderbilt University, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude.DR. RANDELL L. MILLSDr. Mills, Founder and principal stockholder of Brilliant Light Power, Inc., has served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and President since 1991.Dr. Mills has authored nine books, participated in over 50 presentations at professional meetings, and authored and co-authored over 100 papers regarding the field of energy technology that have been published in peer-reviewed journals of international repute. Dr. Mills has received patents or filed patent applications in the following areas: (1) Millsian computational chemical design technology based on a revolutionary approach to solving atomic and molecular structures; (2) magnetic resonance imaging; (3) Mossbauer cancer therapy (Nature, Hyperfine Interactions); (4) Luminide class of drug delivery molecules; (5) genomic sequencing method, and (6) artificial intelligence. A thorough description of the Company’s technology and Dr. Mills’ underlying atomic theory is published in a book entitled The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.Dr. Mills was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Following a year of graduate work in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mills began his research in the field of energy technology.Roger S. Ballentine – CEO Green Strategies Inc.William Beck – Managing Director and Global Head of Engineering and Sustainability Services Credit SuisseH. McIntyre Gardner – Chairman of the Board, Spirit Airlines, Inc.Dr. Ray Gogel – President, Avanti EnterprisesJim Hearty – Former Partner of Clough Capital PartnersPhil Johnson – Former SVP – Intellectual Property Policy & Strategy of Johnson & Johnson – Law Department, Former SVP and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Johnson & JohnsonMatt Key – Commercial Director Charge.autoBill Maurer – SVP ABM IndustriesJeffrey S. McCormick – Chairman and Managing General Partner of SaturnDavid Meredith – Chief Operations and Product Officer at Rackspace Hosting, Inc., President of Private Cloud & Managed Hosting at Rackspace Hosting, Inc.Bill Palatucci – Special Counsel Gibbons LawAmb R. James Woolsey – Former Director of the CIA under President Bill ClintonColin Bannon – Chief Architect BT Global ServicesMichael Harney – Managing Director, BTIGStan O’Neal – Formerly Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Former Board Member of General Motors, Currently on the Board of ArconicRoger S. BallentineRoger Ballentine is the President of Green Strategies Inc., where he provides management consulting services to corporate and financial sector clients on sustainability strategy; investment and transaction evaluation and project development execution in the clean energy sector; and the integration of energy and environmental policy considerations into business strategy. He is also a Venture Partner with Arborview Capital LLC, a private equity firm making growth capital investments in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors. Previously, Roger was a senior member of the White House staff, serving President Bill Clinton as Chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force and Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives. Prior to being named Deputy Assistant, Roger was Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs where he focused on energy and environmental issues. Before joining the White House, Roger was a partner at Patton Boggs LLP.Over the years, Roger has acquired a wealth of experience and knowledge of the energy sector, financial markets, and environmental business practices as well as the politics, players and trends in the energy and environmental space. Using his expertise and deep relationships, Roger has helped clients develop better business strategies, make better investment decisions, negotiate new business partnerships, build critical alliances with stakeholders, and devise impactful government and public affairs strategies.Roger currently serves on the Advisory Boards of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Clean Capital LLC, 8 Rivers Capital, and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), where he was a founding Board member in 2001. He is a member of Ingersoll Rand’s Advisory Council on Sustainability. Roger also serves on the Selection Committee for the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Zayed Future Energy Prize and is the Co-Chair of the Aspen Institute’s Clean Energy Forum.In addition to being a frequent speaker, media commentator and writer, he has been a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School teaching in the area of energy and climate law and a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington D.C.Roger is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of the University of Connecticut and a Cum Laude graduate of the Harvard Law School. He is a member of the Connecticut, District of Columbia, and the United States Supreme Court bars.William BeckWilliam Beck is a Managing Director within the Group Business Support Services (GBSS) Department of Credit Suisse. William is the Global Head of Critical Engineering & Sustainability, based in New York. He leads a team responsible for developing and implementing strategy and governance for the Bank’s Innovation, Energy management, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing & Fire (MEPF) design, Engineering Operations Maintenance, Environmental and Sustainability integration as well as the Data Center Strategy programs. His mandate also includes the bank’s Global Energy Strategy and Procurement integration. Bill has 25+ years of experience including the strategic planning, development, design, construction and operations of mission critical and non-mission critical facilities. William is a licensed Professional Engineer, Master Electrician and Energy procurement specialist. He holds a BSEE degree and a MS degree in Management, both from Fairleigh Dickenson University.H. McIntyre GardnerMr. Gardner was the head of Merrill Lynch’s Private Client business in the Americas and also the Global Bank Group within the firm’s Global Wealth Management Group until early 2008. As head of Private Client Americas, Mac was responsible for the region’s extensive network of more than 600 advisory offices; private banking and investment services to ultra-high net worth clients; the group’s middle markets business; investment and insurance products; distribution and business development; and corporate and diversified financial services.For the Global Bank Group, Mr. Gardner was Chairman of Merrill Lynch Bank USA and responsible for Merrill Lynch’s consumer and commercial banking and cash management products. This included distribution and sales of all bank products and services primarily delivered into the marketplace through Financial Advisors. These activities encompassed retail deposit products and services, credit and debit cards, commercial cash management, residential mortgage lending, securities-based/small business/high-net-worth structured/middle-market lending, and community development lending and investing.Mr. Gardner’s 13-year career at Merrill Lynch also included roles in strategy, Finance Director for the corporation, and as an investment banker specializing in high yield finance, mergers and acquisitions and corporate restructuring.Mr. Gardner has also served as the principal of a financial advisory services firm and as the president of two consumer products companies. He has served on the Board of Directors of Spirit Airlines, Inc. since 2010 and has served as Chairman since August 2013. He also serves on the North American Strategic Advisory Board of Oliver Wyman. Mr. Gardner is a 1983 graduate of Dartmouth College, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in religion.Dr. Ray GogelDr. Ray Gogel started his career in academia, where he obtained his PhD with distinction in philosophy from Drew University after studying for four years in Germany with leading Continental philosophers. Ray’s background in philosophy has permeated the rest of his career, driving a strong and abiding interest in forward-thinking leadership and business models, as well as innovation and disruptive technology. Ray moved from academia to a career in the utility and power industry, progressing through a variety of operational, leadership and business development roles at Public Service Electric & Gas Co in New Jersey, before he left to join IBM as a solution architect, where he designed, sold and delivered IBM’s first Business Process Outsourcing transaction (PG&E Energy Services). Gogel progressed within IBM to become VP—Client Services, responsible for IBM’s largest utility customer and P&L, before joining Xcel Energy, headquartered in Minneapolis.At Xcel, Ray reported directly to the CEO as CIO and later in the expanded role of CAO and President of Customer and Enterprise Solutions, where he managed the core areas of IT, Customer Care/Marketing, Human Resources and Utility Innovation. During his tenure, Xcel received recognition as a premier IT organization in InformationWeek’s Top 500 Awards, placing in the Top 20 for 3 years and twice winning their Business Technology Optimization award. Ray was featured in ComputerWorld’s Premier 100 IT Leaders. Xcel’s unique outsourcing model and use of Strategic Advisory Boards has been the subject of various publications and an early driving force for transformational outsourcing in the utility industry. In 2006, Xcel was awarded the prestigious Edison award from the Edison Electric Institute for its ‘Utility of the Future’ initiatives in IT, as well as Utility of the Year in 2009 from EnergyBiz Magazine for its unique and pioneering ‘SmartGridCity™’ efforts.Ray left Xcel Energy to serve as President and COO of Current Group, an innovative US-based start-up Smart Grid company specializing in cutting-edge smart grid operations and analytics with clients in NA, Europe and AP. He also served as Global Head of Smart Grid for Nokia-Siemens Networks as they explored entry into the Smart Grid adjacency. Ray spent two years as a Managing Director in Accenture’s Resources Group, working as a market-maker for strategic pursuits.In 2014, Ray co-founded USGRDCO with Jay Worenklein and David Mohler and served as President and COO. USGRDCO’s objective is to upgrade the distribution systems of America’s utilities and accelerate the benefits of grid modernization through commercial microgrids and distributed energy resources, thereby offering utilities alternative paths to more efficient, reliable, resilient and secure power systems. Ray and his team pioneered a series of microgrid archetypes and designs, suitable for utilities, private communities and smart cities, which USGRDCO believes represents the future of the North American grid. Ray left his COO role at USGRDCO to found his own consulting group, Avanti Enterprises, Inc., where he provides strategic consulting and business planning to companies in the power sector.During his career, Ray has served on IBM’s Strategic Advisory Board, The World Economic Forum, the Colorado Smart Grid Task Force, EEI’s Smart Grid Workshop Group, the Board of MedicAlert International, Denver’s United Way and Goodwill.Jim HeartyGraduate of Williams College and The Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School.Jim began as a bond trader at First National Bank of Boston, where he eventually ran the Bond Department, (the largest underwriter of Tax Exempt Debt in New England with a significant business in US Government and Agency Securities and Money Market securities). In the early 1990’s, Jim was the Assistant Secretary of Administration and Finance for Governor Bill Weld and responsible for all Bond Financings for the Commonwealth and Agencies and Authorities where the Governor served on the Board.Over the course of his career he also served as: Board Member of the Public Securities Association and a Board Member and Chairman of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Board Member of the Mass HFA, The Mass Industrial Finance Agency, The Massachusetts Land Bank and the Pension Reserve Investment Management Board (The State Pension System) among others. Remained on the Board of the Pension System and co-through the terms of Governors Weld, Cellucci, Swift and Romney.Working at Lehman Brothers as a banker in the Tax Exempt Division, Jim was responsible for Business in New England and grew the franchise substantially, lead managed significant issues in all New England State. Became the Head of Public Finance in 1998, and Co-Head of the Tax Exempt Division including all trading and underwriting in 2000, and grew the Business substantially.In 2002, he was the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Pension Reserve, and served for two years as ED and CIO of the $70 Billion Pension Fund. Then in 2005, Jim was a Partner of Relational Investors, one of the original “Activist” Institutional Investors, and grew the business from $1.5 Billion to $5 Billion Dollars in AUM. Significant Engagements included Home Depot, Sovereign Bancorp, Hewlett-Packard and Sprint. In 2008, he became a Partner of Clough Capital Partners and was responsible for fundraising in the Institutional Market, where he grew the AUM in our long/short fund from $500 Million to $2.0 Billion.Jim is married to Doris Blodgett since 1975, 3 sons, Resident of Boston.Phil JohnsonPhil is currently a member of the Board and Executive Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”), Co-Chapter Editor of the Sedona Conference WG10 biopharmaceutical patent litigation project, and member of the board of the Monell Chemical Senses Center. Phil recently retired as Senior Vice President – Intellectual Property Policy & Strategy of Johnson & Johnson – Law Department. Prior to April of 2014, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Johnson & Johnson where he managed a worldwide group of about 270 IP professionals, of whom over 100 were patent and trademark attorneys.Before joining Johnson & Johnson in 2000, Phil was a senior partner and co-chair of IP litigation at Woodcock Washburn in Philadelphia. During his 27 years in private practice, Phil counseled independent inventors, startups, universities and businesses of all sizes in all aspects of intellectual property law. His diverse practice pertained to advances in a wide variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, medical devices, consumer products, semi-conductor fabrication, automated manufacturing, materials and waste management. During his time in private practice, Phil served as trial counsel in countless IP disputes, including cases resolved by arbitration, bench trials, jury trials and appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, many of which resulted in reported decisions.During his tenure at Johnson & Johnson, Phil served terms on the Medical Device & Diagnostics and Pharmaceutical Group Operating Committees responsible for managing J&J’s many businesses in these fields, while also serving on the senior management team responsible for J&J’s legal organization, which has now grown to over 450 attorneys located in 70+ locations in 35+ countries.Phil’s has previously served as the Chair of the Board of American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, as President of INTERPAT, as President of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, as co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, as Chair of PhRMA’s IP Focus Group and as Board Member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.Phil’s has previously served as the Chair of the Board of American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, as President of INTERPAT, as President of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, as co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, as Chair of PhRMA’s IP Focus Group and as Board Member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.Phil has frequently testified before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about patent law reform and, more recently, abusive patent litigation. Phil served as a member of Chief Judge Michel’s Advisory Council on Patent Reform, and was recognized in the Congressional Record as a member of the Minority Whip Jon Kyle’s “Kitchen Cabinet” for the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Thereafter, Phil served as IPO’s representative on the ABA-AIPLA-IPO committee of six experts (“COSE”) formed at Director Kappos’ request to propose regulations to the USPTO for implementing the PGR-IPR post-grant proceedings created by the AIA.Phil co-authored “Compensatory Damages Issues In Patent Infringement Cases, A Pocket Guide for Federal District Court Judges,” published by the Federal Judicial Center, and has served that Center as a faculty member on its IP-related judicial education programming. Phil was also featured in the Landslide Publication March/April 2013 issue. Most recently, Phil authored “The America Invents Act on Its Fifth Anniversary: A Promise Thus Far Only Partially Fulfilled,” published on 9/15/2016 in IP Watchdog.Phil’s awards include the Woodcock Prize for Legal Excellence (1997); the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association’s Jefferson Medal (2013); the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Association’s Distinguished Intellectual Property Practitioner award (May, 2017), induction into the international IP Hall of Fame by the IP Hall of Fame Academy (June, 2017) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association “Carl B. Horton President’s Distinguished Service Award” (September, 2017).Phil received his Bachelor of Science degree, cum laude with distinction in biology from Bucknell University, and his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School.Matt KeyMatt has been changing business through the innovative use of technology throughout his career. He has successfully transformed how businesses approach the market and enabled the creation of repeatable and sophisticated services and solutions whilst bringing in many new clients.Prior to Everynet and now Charge (a new connected electric truck manufacturer) he ran the Global IoT Business for Vodafone and before led the Enterprise division in Cable & Wireless Worldwide. Other experience includes working for Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Capita and Barclays.Bill MaurerBill Maurer is the Senior Vice President of ABM Industries. Mr. Maurer is responsible for managing the Energy portfolio for ABM. ABM Industries is a best-in-class provider of Integrated Facility Services which include – Energy Solutions, Mechanical Service and Construction, Facility Management, Janitorial, Security, and Parking Services for building owners and operators in North America and selected international locations. ABM is one of the nation’s most successful single source providers of high value facilities management and building optimization services.Mr. Maurer has over 20 years of experience in the Energy Industry where he has held various and increasing levels of management and responsibility. Most recently, Mr. Maurer joined ABM in 2006. Under his guidance, the Energy Solutions division has maintained exponential growth year after year. To do this Mr. Maurer had to completely re-organize and re-structure the existing energy division. There were significant changes made in personnel, market focus and overall strategy towards the Energy Business. Through the changes that were made in Energy offerings, ABM is now able to offer to their clients a unique program to provide cost savings that allow them to fund needed improvements to reduce energy consumption, reduce environmental impact and comply with government regulations. Not only has the revenue increased substantially in the Energy division, but the unique solutions delivered by ABM and the markets in which were focused on has also increased dramatically.With a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Maurer’s career path began at the Systems and Services Division of Johnson Controls, an internationally renowned building technology and manufacturing leader. At Johnson Controls, he spent nearly 8 years in sales and management positions where he was a top performer with a track record of consistent top performances in growth, sales achievement, profitability and leadership.Over the past 21 years, Mr. Maurer has been involved with over $900M in Energy Saving Programs to customers. He is a recognized leader in the industry by his co-workers and competition alike. He is involved with leadership positions in multiple industry related organizations – NAESCO (Board Member), BOMA, ASHRAE (Former Treasurer) and Energy Services Coalition. Mr. Maurer has been involved in multiple speaking engagements at industry/ market events and The White House. Mr. Maurer is also involved with and holds leadership positions within 2 Cancer Fund Organizations.On a personal note, Mr. Maurer has a wife of 20 years and two children (16 old boy and 14 old girl). They have lived in Milford, MI area for the past 11 years. He enjoys playing competitive hockey, soccer and golf. He is an avid outdoorsman and enjoys hunting – specifically pheasant and duck. Reading financial, motivational and educational books is a daily practice.Jeffrey S. McCormickJeffrey is the Chairman and Managing General Partner of Saturn. He founded Saturn in 1993 and began financing early stage companies including, the extremely successful business to business e-commerce company, FreeMarkets (FMKT, acquired by ARBA); the largest U.S. biodiesel company, Twin Rivers Technologies (acquired by FELDA); email marketing company, Constant Contact (CTCT); and the extremely popular Boston Duck Tours. Saturn Partners II and III, have invested in cutting-edge technology companies in healthcare, education, energy, IT and environmental businesses.Jeffrey has over 25 years of experience as an investment banker, entrepreneur and venture capitalist. He currently serves on the boards including BioWish, Knopp Biosciences, Third Pole, and XNG Energy.Jeffrey is a graduate of Syracuse University, where he received an MBA in Finance and a BS in Biology. He was a Collegiate Scholar Athlete, first year team All-American lacrosse player, and a captain of Syracuse’s first NCAA championship lacrosse team.Jeffrey is a Vice Chair of the CitiCenter for the Performing Arts. He serves on the Dean’s Advisory Committee of the School of Management at Syracuse University and is Founding Principal Financier of the Sean McDonough Charities for Children. He is actively involved with the Trinity Church in Boston.Jeffrey is married with three children.David MeredithDavid Meredith has been Chief Operations and Product Officer at Rackspace Hosting, Inc. since January 2018. Mr. Meredith’s responsibilities include P&L oversight of the vision, operational and administrative direction of Rackspace’s product lines, operations, technology and service delivery functions. Mr. Meredith has been the President of Private Cloud & Managed Hosting at Rackspace Hosting, Inc. since June 1, 2017. Prior to joining Rackspace, Mr. Meredith served as the President of global data centers at CenturyLink. He has led international managed hosting businesses in roles including senior manager, president, Chief Executive Officer and board director. His experience spans a range of industry verticals from venture-backed firms such as NeuPals in China to business units of large public companies such as Capital One, CGI and VeriSign. He served as Senior Vice President and Global General Manager for Technology Solutions at CenturyLink, Inc. As an industry thought leader, he has provided insights for leading media outlets such as BusinessWeek, USA Today and The Washington Post. CIO Magazine, Wireless Week and The Huffington Post have published his articles. He has spoken on industry topics for NBC’s Carson Daly Show, NPR’s Morning Edition, Seoul Broadcasting System, PBS’ Nightly Business Report and at analyst forums such as Gartner, Bloomberg, Yankee and Cantor Fitzgerald. In December 2016, the respected Uptime Institute recognized his contributions to the Industry by selecting him for their Change Leader Award. He was named “Top 40 under 40 – Best and Brightest Leaders” by Georgia Trend Magazine in 2008. Mr. Meredith graduated with honors from James Madison University with a Bachelor of Business Administration in finance and he earned a Masters in IT management from the University of Virginia, where he serves on the UVA advisory board.Bill PalatucciBill Palatucci is one of the state’s most prominent and widely respected attorneys, with a reputation for strategic planning and advice regarding complex public policy and communications initiatives. He has been named among NJBIZ’s “100 Most Powerful People in New Jersey Business” every year that the issue has been published.Most recently, following the Republican National Convention through Election Day, Mr. Palatucci served as General Counsel to the Presidential Transition Committee of President Donald J. Trump. In this role, he was responsible for all legal matters related to ethics compliance and contracts and agreements between such agencies as the U.S. Department of Justice, General Services Administration, and the White House. Mr. Palatucci coordinated extensively with internal and external members assisting the transition, providing all necessary legal advice and guidance to facilitate the Transition Committee’s interactions with the Trump-Pence campaign, federal departments and agencies, local, state, and federal officials, think tanks, outside experts and consultants, and various other entities and individuals with whom the Transition Committee engaged with during the pre-Election Day time period.Mr. Palatucci also served as General Counsel to Governor Christie’s presidential campaign. In 2013, he served as Chairman of the Governor’s reelection campaign and as Co-Chair for the Governor’s Inaugural Committee.In 2010, Mr. Palatucci was elected the Republican National Committeeman for New Jersey, and, for the past 30 years, he has had a hand in some of the most important state and federal elections in New Jersey. Over this time, he has led the reelection campaigns of President Ronald Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and Governor Tom Kean, and he served as a senior advisor to Governor George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. Mr. Palatucci was also the principal consultant for Christine Todd Whitman’s run for the U.S. Senate in 1990.Amb R. James WoolseyAmbassador R. James Woolsey was the Director of Central Intelligence for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1993 to 1995. He’s been appointed by Presidents to positions of leadership during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. In a town riven by partisan divisions, Ambassador Woolsey is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.A national security and energy specialist, he is the Chancellor of the Institute of World Politics and Chair of the Leadership Council of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Chairs the United States Energy Security Council. He is also a Venture Partner with Lux Capital and chairs the Strategic Advisory Group of the Paladin Capital Group, a multi-stage private equity firm.He is a frequent contributor of articles to major publications, and gives public speeches and media interviews on the subjects of energy, foreign affairs, defense, and intelligence.This just a partial list of the high powered personnel sources I have used. Mills himself is just one of the thousands involved so far.