https://www.renewableenergywor…-to-zero-carbon-emissions

The US electric power sector is halfway to zero carbon emissions

QUOTE:

Renewable energy’s rapid growth is accelerating a national shift to a carbon-free electric power system.

So far 17 states plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have adopted laws or executive orders setting goals for reaching 100% clean electricity by 2050 or sooner. And 46 U.S. utilities have pledged to go carbon-free. Now the Biden administration and some members of Congress are proposing to decarbonize the power sector by 2035.

While this much change in 15 years seems ambitious, our new report, “Halfway to Zero,” looks back at the past 15 and finds that power sector emissions are half of what they were projected to be.

We analyzed the “business as usual” projection in the 2005 Annual Energy Outlook published by the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. government’s official agency for data collection and analysis. It projected that annual carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector would rise from 2,400 million to 3,000 million metric tons from 2005 to 2020.

Instead, they fell to 1,450 million metric tons – 52% below projected levels. In short, the U.S. electricity sector has managed to march halfway to zero in just 15 years. . . .

Wind and solar power dramatically outperformed expectations, delivering 13 times more generation in 2020 than projected. Emission-free nuclear generation largely held steady. . . .

These shifts have delivered many benefits. Total electric bills for consumers were 18% lower in 2020 than the Energy Information Administration had previously projected, saving households US$86 billion per year. . . .

Technical report:

Abstract

Sharply reducing carbon emissions is imperative to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Yet even in the power sector—often viewed as the lynchpin to economy-wide decarbonization, and where low-carbon solutions are increasingly plentiful and cost-effective—the pace and scale of the required transformation can be daunting. A review of historical trends, however, shows the progress the power sector has already made in reducing emissions. Fifteen years ago, many business-as-usual projections anticipated that annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power supply in the United States would reach 3,000 million metric tons (MMT) in 2020. In fact, direct power-sector CO2 emissions in 2020 were 1,450 MMT—roughly 50% below the earlier projections. By this metric, in only 15 years the country’s power sector has gone halfway to zero emissions. Other metrics also evolved differently than projected: total consumer electricity costs (i.e., bills) were 18% lower; costs to human health and the climate were 92% and 52% lower, respectively; and the number of jobs in electricity generation was 29% higher. Economic, technical, and policy factors contributed to this success, including sectoral changes, energy efficiency, wind and solar, continued operations of the nuclear fleet, and coal-to-gas fuel switching. . . .

Quote from Fm1

Fauci spreading more bullshit, says republicans are not taking vaccine overlooking only 20% of blacks and 35% hispanic have taken a jab. They vote democrat!!!

That's not bullshit. Both statements are true. Republicans are taking the vaccine at much lower rates than Democrats, and blacks and hispanics are also taking it at lower rates even though they tend to be Democrats. The set of "Democrats" does not includes every member of the party. Some groups within the Democratic party are less inclined to get the vaccine than others. Some groups in the Republican party are more inclined. Elderly Republicans are much more likely to want the vaccine then middle-aged and young Republicans.

See Fig. 6 here:

https://www.vox.com/2021/3/21/…9-vaccine-hesitancy-polls

Quote from Fm1

No, vaccine side effects don't tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19

That's what I read too. As I said: "experts say even if you do not experience them, the vaccine probably worked and you have nothing to worry about." On the other hand, the side effects do tell you the vaccine is working. That can be reassuring.

During the blind tests, people who got fevers knew they were given active doses and not placebos. I read an article by a young women who took part in the blind tests last fall. She felt no side effects, and worried she was not protected. She worried a lot. Like she has a mild case of hypochondria. Early this year they revealed the results and she was right: it was a placebo. They invited her in for an active dose in January. That was good of them.

Quote from Alan Smith

Of the 3,444 individual reports, 2,980 were considered non-serious (0.039% of all doses administered) and 464 were considered serious (0.006% of all doses administered).
Most adverse events are mild and include soreness at the site of injection or a slight fever.
Serious adverse events are rare, but do occur. They include anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction), which has been reported 60 times for all COVID-19 vaccines across Canada. That’s why you need to wait for a period of time after you receive a vaccination so that you can receive treatment in case of an allergic reaction.

Apart from anaphylaxis, these reactions are nothing to worry about. On the contrary, they are good news, indicating the vaccine is working. I get that people who suffer from fevers probably don't feel lucky. Of course all reactions should be recorded in the database as adverse effects even when they are actually a good sign.

Soreness and fever are good signs, but experts say even if you do not experience them, the vaccine probably worked and you have nothing to worry about.

. . . My wife felt crummy for a day from the second COVID-19 shot, similar to what Alan Smith reported here. It did not bother me, except for a little soreness.

Quote from Curbina

Unfortunately I don’t have a list of them, the last one was about the interview to Jacques Ruer earlier this week.

I got that one. Thanks!

Quote from Shane D.

Reference?

https://www.ama-assn.org/pract…essionals-during-covid-19

How would I know if I am receiving some but not all of them? Are they listed somewhere? I will check.

Quote from Fm1

Merck and the FDA came out against Ivermectin only after the US government contributed $356 million to Merck to develop MK-7110, an anti-COVID drug. This occurred after Merck purchased the rights to MK-7110 for $425 million in a deal announced on December 23, 2020. The chances of this drug receiving approval by the FDA are very high.

The chances of Ivermectin successfully competing against MK-7110, if Ivermectin is also approved, are also high. It is, therefore, logical that a multi-billion dollar industry will use its immense lobbying, media, and advertising power to prevent this. The smoking gun here is that Merck was the original developer of Ivermectin, but now that their old drug is generic and no longer profitable, it is being tossed under the proverbial bus.

As I have pointed out before, this analysis makes no sense. Even if Merck opposes ivermectin because they want to sell something more expensive -- MK-7110 -- other drug manufacturers would be thrilled to sell a bunch of ivermectin instead, even at a much lower cost. They don't care if they cut into Merck's profit. On the contrary, they would love to do that.

The comparison to the tobacco industry fails because every company in that industry was selling the same thing: tobacco. There were no alternative products. No competing products, or better, or safer ones. It was not as if one of them could offer a safe alternative to tobacco. If there had been such a thing, and Phillip Morris had it, you can be sure they would have gone to the Congress and tried to outlaw the sale of everyone else's unsafe tobacco products. There was unity among the tobacco makers only because they had no choice. There is no unity among pharma companies. Or in any other industry. If Ford finds a dangerous problem in Toyota cars, they will not be silent out of professional courtesy. They will inform the authorities and the public, and they will hope that the revelation clobbers Toyota sales. When a computer software company finds a serious bug or security flaw in a competing product, they shout that from the rooftops and run big ads saying their competitor is endangering the public. If any other pharma company thought ivermectin was effective and they wanted to sell it, they would plaster the mass media with ads saying "Merck is stopping us from saving lives." There is no incentive for them to go along with a coverup. On the contrary, they would earn hundreds of millions of dollars in sales by exposing the coverup, plus they would get to take billions of dollars away from Merck, their competitor. A win-win proposition! Any sane businessman would do it.

Notice I am not saying they would expose the coverup because they are good people. Or because have a moral obligation. Or they care about the public. (Some surely do care, and other probably do not.) I am saying they would do it for money. Lots and lots of money. Some business people are good, and some are bad. Some are brave and some are cowards. What they all have in common is that given an opportunity to make hundreds of millions of dollars in easy money, in a legitimate business they are licensed to do, in which they are experts, every single one of them will take that opportunity. If it happens clobber their competition and take away even more money from the competition, all the better!

Quote from Fm1

ou know nothing of the FDA and it's powers. I have worked in medical manufacturing and have witnessed inspections by uniformed FDA employees, they have the power to shut companies down for as little as dust in a manufacturing area and have the power to arrest and prosecute and have done so many many times.

I did not say the FDA is powerless. I said the medical establishment has only taken licenses away from 27 doctors in 10 years. That's not the FDA. State Medical Boards are the ones who regulate doctors and revoke licenses. The FDA may be able to close down medical manufacturing facilities, but it has no power over doctors. Quote:

The FDA does not regulate the medical profession. The agency has no control over how doctors prescribe approved drugs to patients. So once a medication is on the market, it is up to physicians to determine the medically appropriate use of the drug.

https://www.drugwatch.com/health/off-label-drug-use/

I can see why doctors would normally fear malpractice suits, but the Congress exempted them for COVID-19 cases.

I also said the NIH is not a regulatory agency. Obviously the FDA is. However, it cannot stop off-label uses of drugs and it does not regulate the medical profession.

Quote from Fm1

Maybe hearing from over 3000 doctors working on Covid 24/7 might give you a better perspective.

27 doctors losing their licenses in 10 years gives me a sense of perspective. Why would doctors be afraid of regulators when the chances of losing their job is about as high as winning the lottery? The FDA is toothless. All it can do is stop doctors from giving horse medicine. Which it does. There are mass media reports of doctors giving invermectin. The Congress passed an emergency law banning malpractice suits for COVID-19 treatments. Clearly, if you shop around, you will find a doctor willing to give you any damn thing in this pandemic. I suppose that is how things should be. It is a dire emergency, and the usual caution that doctors use should be put aside. I wish they would be less cautious about the J&J blood clot issue, and keep administering the vaccine while they work out standards to see who might be at risk for clots (if anyone).

If you want to see how powerless regulators are, and how poorly medicine is regulated in the U.S., look at the quack cures for cancer and other serious diseases. Even worse by far, look at all the doctors abusing opioid painkillers, handing out prescriptions like confetti. Of course that is against the law, but they get away with it, and they have addicted and killed hundreds of thousands of people. The NIH and the FDA know about this, and they have been yelling for years, but the drug companies and the Congress stopped them from taking effective action. See:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug…ds/opioid-overdose-crisis

(The NIH has absolutely no regulatory power. All they can do is talk, talk, talk.)

The "evil big pharma" trope is exaggerated, but it surely does have some basis. The opioid crisis is big pharam's fault. They killed people for profit. Of course the addicts themselves are also to blame. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Quote from JedRothwell

This and other statements from FDA explicitly give permission to use any approved drug off-label.

It is obvious the people at the FDA oppose the use of ivermectin. They wish people would stop using it. But nowhere in this statement or any other will you find an implication that doctors will get in trouble for using it. The Congress and public would come down the FDA like a ton of bricks if they said that. As I recall, this fight was lost decades ago, when quack doctors insisted they be allowed to use non-working cancer cures, and the Congress agreed with them. The FDA cannot stop these quacks, who continue to rob desperate patients and their families.

The FDA people have an obligation to express their professional opinions about ivermectin. They may be wrong, but they have to tell the public they think the stuff does not work. It would be a dereliction of duty for them to say: "Meh. Why not? It may not help, but it can't hurt." Government regulators don't talk that way. They have to reach a conclusion, and they have to sound confident. Sometimes too confident, as we saw with the mistakes made by the CDC during the early stages of the pandemic. It turns out scientists are not omniscient Gods. I kinda knew that, but a lot of people blame them for being wrong about things that no one could possibly know for sure.

If you want to see the impossibly high standard scientists are held to, consider the fact that one researcher was forced to resign last year for quoting something like a 30% efficacy rate. It was 30%, but not in the sense the public took that to mean. He did not mean 30% of patients were cured. It was a 30% improvement, something like from 10% to 13%. Hardly measurable. That was a misunderstanding, but the guy was run out the job. It is the kind of misunderstanding I have been dealing with for decades, writing technical manuals and papers. Firing people for that is an outrage. There are always problems like that in a technical document. Along similar lines, people were much too hard on Fauci for sayings "masks are not needed" early in the pandemic. They were not yet needed, because there were so few cases outside of hospitals. Also, we needed to conserve supplies. Fauci did not explain this well. He should have corrected himself. But to blame him for confusing the issue is unreasonable. I wasn't a bit confused. I knew what he had in mind. You have to have some technical knowledge to understand these things, or you may be confused. Also, he tends to talk around the point. As they say of scientists, you ask what time it is and they tell you how to make a watch. He makes things hard for the layman to understand. He is an expect, but maybe not an expert in explaining things to the layman. His confrontation with Rep. Jordan yesterday was frustrating for me to watch. I felt like telling him: "Just give the man a number! Tell him that when we reach 1,000 cases a day and the numbers are declining, we can stop using masks. Draw an arbitrary line."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/pol…-exchange-hearing-vpx.cnn

Early in the pandemic, some ignorant reporters were badering Fauci about whether it is safe to gather in groups of five, or groups of 10. Which is the right number? He kept saying this or that study says this or that. He should have said: "Biology is not an exact science. The number is around 5 or 10, but there are circumstances such as where you are gathering and what you are doing, so it is just a general guideline." People demand more precision than the science can provide.

Quote from Fm1

This statement effectively blocks doctors from prescribing ivermectin opening a direct route for civil matters and loss of license.

No, it does not. This and other statements from FDA explicitly give permission to use any approved drug off-label. The FDA has to say that, because that is the law. They don't get to decide. ~20% or more prescriptions are off-label, so if this could lead to the loss of license, a lot of doctors would be in trouble. Whereas in fact, over a ten-year period in the U.S. the total number of doctors who had their licenses revoked was . . . 27. Out of 540,000 doctors. That's 0.0005% per year. It is not something they will lose sleep over.

https://hhklawfirm.com/will-a-…medical-malpractice-case/

Quote from Fm1

KEY POINTS

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said people will "likely" need a third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated.

He also said it's possible people will need to get vaccinated against the coronavirus annually.

If that turns out to be the case, it will be annoying. But not a serious problem. No worse than having to get a flu shot every year. The vaccines should be cheap after a few years. They are expensive now because they were needed on an emergency basis, in a hurry. If the booster shots can be staged all 12 months of the year, production should not be so difficult.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, it is at their discretion to administer drugs "off-label", but if they choose to do so, it comes with great risk to their livelihood.

No, it does not. They make the patients sign dozens of forms promising not to sue if the drugs don't work. Heck, they make me sign dozens of forms before giving me over-the-counter drugs. I am sure it is not a risk because 10% to 20% of prescriptions are for off-label use, according to various sources, such as:

https://journalofethics.ama-as…hysician-disclose/2016-06

Other sources give even higher numbers. It cannot be that ~20% of doctors are risking their careers. Not that many doctors are so brave -- or foolhardy.

Quote from Shane D.

Good story. In the old days, a journalists job was to root out the truth. They kept the corporations, organizations, and governments somewhat honest. Nowadays, more often than not, they play a role in protecting, and covering for whatever the official narrative is.

Why do you think journalists rooted out the truth in the good old days? I know why. I knew many journalists in the good old days and in the present day. They did it for money. It was their job, and it was lucrative. Scandal sells. Stories about governments and big corporations abusing power sells. Bad news sells. Anger and controversy sell. As one reporter put it, "news is what makes someone, somewhere, very angry." That is true now. It was true in the 19th century, and 2000 years ago, and for all of history. Newspapers are no more the lapdogs of the powerful today than they ever were. Because the ones that are lapdogs don't sell. No one wants to read anodyne support for the establishment. The establishment publishes any amount of that itself, in press releases that no one reads.

Your assertion is a romanticized view of things.

Quote from Fm1

Only in clinical trials no out patient treatment

Again, and again, and again, let me point out that it is use, and the use of it is entirely at the doctor's discretion. That is what the FDA website says. I do not know where you are getting your information but I am 100% certain that what the FDA says on its own website about its own policies is correct.

Quote from Fm1

The FDA can effectively block the use of ivermectin but is useless in regulating miracle Covid cures such as this.......

Please stop repeating this falsehood. The FDA has not and cannot block the use of ivermectin for COVID or any other purpose. Off-label uses are allowed. The FDA made that quite clear in the web page I pointed to. And pointed to. And pointed to. Ivermectin is being used in the U.S. to treat COVID-19.

Quote from Fm1

Scientists are using natural-language algorithms to predict Covid-19 variants

That is a sign of progress in AI. It means they are now designing algorithms that can be applied to a broader range of problems, rather than only the one problem they were designed for. The long-term goal of AI is "general purpose intelligence," meaning the program will produce useful answers for any problem set, without a lot of training.

Today's AI has two problems on the agenda to be fixed. It is not general purpose enough, and it requires gigantic training sets. Some of the pattern recognition algorithms work with many different objects, such as people's faces, cats, hammers, and so on. But they require very large training sets. Thousands of images of cats. A human toddler can recognize a cat after seeing only a few examples.

See the book, "You Look Like a Thing and I Love You."

https://www.amazon.com/You-Loo…Love-ebook/dp/B07PBVN3YJ/

Quote from RobertBryant

IAEA supports Japan

I cannot judge, but I hope they are right.

Organizations such as the IAEA try not to do things that will destroy their reputations, or their credibility. They may not be intrinsically honest, but they are in the spotlight, so they seldom get away with mischief. But sometimes they do. TEPCO sure did in the months following the accident. The Japanese Parliament committee investigating the accident ended up hopping mad at TEPCO. They did not trust TEPCO or their own government. They relied on a report written by U.S. experts.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Case Western Reserve

Avatar Team in Semifinals

https://thedaily.case.edu/avatar-team-in-semifinals/

The competition is sponsored by ANA, All Nippon Airways. That is a little surprising. If the avatar technology succeeds, it will permanently wipe out a lot of airline business. The same way the pandemic spurred the use of Zoom and other videoconferencing. That reduced business travel. It showed people they don't need to travel as much. I expect business travel will never be as common as it was before the pandemic.

See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…el-videoconferencing.html

"Do You Really Need to Fly?

Videoconferencing is good enough to replace a lot of pointless business travel."

The next frontier after remote avatar technology is . . . um . . . teledildonics.