Inslee's "Dire Situation"?

The Seattle Times November 25th edition front-page article, "Inslee: State faces dire situation as virus cases skyrocket," portends an eminent disaster.  That 3,482 new cases and 35 new deaths "shattered previous records".  That, "hospitalizations for the new virus mean hospitals could have to delay treatment".

However if one bothered to look at the actual data on page A6 the 3482 cases and 35 deaths were preceded by 2 days with no cases and no deaths.  Virus hospitalizations were a tiny fraction of the total and total hospitalizations were 3000 below the 11,362, 80% capacity level.

It's unclear how many people were tested during the 3 days however the 28-day average positive test rates increased from 4% on November 1st to 12% on the 23rd.   Meanwhile, from November 17th, when directives began, the 14-day averages for positive cases increased from 1710 to 2215 per day and for deaths from 13 to 15 per day.  Those resulted in overall mortality rates declining from 0.76% to 0.67%.  However it's not enough to look at the overall rate.

The A6-page pie charts show those under 60 had 83% of the 2215 cases but only 10% of the 15 deaths.  Thus the mortality rate for Washingtonians under 60 was 1.5 deaths/1838 cases or 0.08%.  (For those under 20 the mortality rate was 0.)  However the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 2018 mortality rates for those 15-64 was 1.69%.  Thus approximate 20 times the number of people under 60 who died from virus did so from over causes.

For those over 60 the 17% of cases but 90% of deaths the mortality rate was 13.5 deaths/376 deaths or 3.6%.  Again the NCHS mortality rate in 2018 for those from 65 to 84 was 6.26%, 74% higher.

By comparison an estimated 61,000 out of 45 million U.S. residents who had the flu in 2017-2918 died, a mortality rate of 0.135%.  Comparable numbers in 2018-2019 were 34,157 out of 35.5 million died, 0.095% mortality.  And this was with a vaccine.

Clearly COVID-19 is no more serious for those under 60 than the common flu.  Yet Inslee's directives fall far more heavily on the 80% of Washingtonians  under 60.  They are the ones who either work at or patronize the restaurants and bars, gyms, bowling lanes, movie theaters and gyms.  Limiting their access to religious service and forbidding weddings and funerals adds to their loss.  All of the limitations on schools, social gatherings, travel, and sporting events will have little impact on mortalities for the 80% of Washingtonians under 60.

Meanwhile Inslee's directives will have less impact on the 20% of Washingtonians over 60.  Many  will be retired,  less active socially, have pre-existing conditions, or in nursing homes, so its unlikely his directive will significantly reduce their mortality.  However, for the ones most impacted by the directives, the 80% under 60,  for the 1 person out of 1000 who dies from the virus, 19 will die from other causes.

The bottom line is Governor Inslee (and apparently the Times) refuses to recognize that COVID treatments have improved to where more than 999 out of 1000 of those under 60, and 96 out of 100 of those over 60 will survive the virus.  The entire state will pay a heavy price if he continues to do so.  On December 15th residents can make their own decision as to whether the reduction in cases or deaths per day was worth the lives disrupted if not devastated by the directives.

Abating the ST Board "Light Rail Spine" Debacle.

Sound Transit held a virtual public hearing 11 a.m. November 12th to accept public comment on their proposed 2021 Budget'.  I had responded to their offer to accept comments prior to the meeting with a somewhat revised version of the, "Sound Transit CEO Rogoff Incompetence" post on this blog.  It was one of three submitted to the board prior to the meeting.  I've been waiting for the meeting video to post Sound Transit's response on the blog.

The Nov 12th morning meeting video became available on the 17th.  However the participants failed to mention any of the prior submissions.  (They were originally posted but are no longer available on Internet).  Since no one had signed up to speak during the meeting it was adjourned as having "no public comment".  

The video of the subsequent board member meeting also became available on the 17th.  It mentioned the fact Bill Hirt and two others had submitted comments.  However, none of the submissions generated any response from the board members present.  Instead they recommended the Sound Transit Board accept Sound Transit's Finance Department  budget for 2021 in their December 17th meeting.

It's just another year of more than a decade of Sound Transit Board incompetence.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to extend light rail routed through the DSTT beyond UW to the north, SeaTac to the south, or across Lake Washington.  The way to reduce I-5 and I-90 congestion was to increase access to transit with additional parking with access to increased bus capacity into both Seattle and Bellevue.

Instead the board has allowed Sound Transit to spend billions on light rail extensions that don't increase transit capacity and spend nothing to increase bus transit ridership that would.  The board's "likely" approval of the 2021 budget on December 17th continues the incompetence.  

The most blatant example was the board's prior approval of CEO Rogoff's 2019 budget for 2017-2041.  It proposed spending $96.2B over those years implementing the country's most massive transportation system expansion.  The budget's light rail ridership projections were delusional and it continued the decade long refusal to increase bus ridership.

The 2019 budget projected in 2041 Sound Transit would have a debt of $17B, requiring $1B annually for debt service payments, a $1.5B annual Operation and Maintenance Budget, and $0.8B for State of Good Repair by Assets cost.  The budget projected paying for those expenditures in 2041 with $3.7B in tax revenue, $0.1B in grants and $0.47B in fares.

However the ST3 funding voter approved in 2016 ends in 2041.  (Sound Transit used legislation enabling them to ask voter for $1B annually for 15 years to extend the ST3 taxes to 2041).  Thus all the ST3 tax revenue will disappear in 2041.  The budget accounted for that loss with,  "Upon completion of all voter approved transit projects, the Sound Transit Board will initiate steps to roll back the rate of sales and use tax collected".  I't not clear "initiating steps to roll back taxes", reflects that loss.  

Two years ago a competent transit board would have recognized the folly of CEO Rogoff's plan to spend $96B on a transit system expansion that in 2042  results in a $1B annual debt service payment and $2.3B operating expenses with no way to pay.  (A competent transit board wouldn't have even allowed the Prop 1 extensions.)  

Instead they would have recommended funds for the light rail spine be diverted to the far less expensive to construct and operate Ballard-to-West Seattle link.  Some of the spine funds would be used to add parking with access to increased bus capacity to reduce I-5 congestion.  Instead the board not only approved Rogoff's budget, they renewed his contract for three years with a hefty raise.

Hundreds of millions have been spent on the spine but little to increase bus transit.  The board is currently on a path to approve his equally inept 2021 budget response to the corona pandemic.  The Nov 12th meeting video detailed plans to spend more than $1.5B on light rail expansions beyond Angel Lake, Northgate, and Overlake that do nothing to increase transit capacity.  (Doing so requires they need a new $700M loan.)  That when completed they'll increase operating costs, reduce access for current riders and do nothing to reduce area congestion.

The 2021 budget delays the West Seattle-to-Ballard link that would provide 100,000 commuters transit into Seattle.  It continues a decade of refusing to increase bus transit capacity and increases the outstanding debt in 2041. (It would seem the lack of ability to fund debt service payments might be a deterrent to lenders.) 

The "likely" Sound Transit Board approval of CEO Rogof's 2021 budget for light rail spine is just the latest example of incompetence.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to extend light rail beyond UW or SeaTac.  It's way past time for the Seattle Time editorial board and Traffic Lab to recognize that reality.  Doing so before the December 17th Sound Transit Board vote could prevent them from spending another $1.5B, at least abating the debacle.

The Times Abets ST CEO Incompetence

The September 3rd post "Seattle Times Response to ST Transit Development Plan 2020-2025" critiqued the Times Sept 2nd Editorial, "Speak up on Sound Transit Plans" response to TPD. 

The editorial opined:

"Concerned residents should review and comment on 'what's in the works'.  Consider it the start of a vital, regional discussion".

"Substantial revisions to Sound Transit's work plan, included the current mix of rail and buses, may be needed"

The Times urging residents comment on "what's in the works" 12 years after Prop 1 passed seems rather "belated".  The suggestion revising "current mix of rail and buses" ignores Times abetting Sound Transit decade long refusal to increase bus transit capacity.  The editorial shows the Times still doesn't recognize their real problem contending:

 

"The promised spine linking Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma must be completed".

The Times has never recognized the DSTT limited light rail capacity to where the riders added by the extensions will reduce access to current light rail riders, potentially ending access during peak commute.  However the public response they generated to the TDP led to it no longer being available on the Internet.

Still the Times continues to abet  CEO Rogoff incompetence.  His October 14 "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2121 Budget" can best be described as an "overview"with a series of charts showing the pandemic impact on both the "Long Range Financial Plan" and the "Proposed 2021 Budget".

The "Long Range Plan" consists of a 4-year delay for the West Seattle-to-Ballard Link.  His Proposed 2021 Budget provides no details on current transit mode operation,  He funds his "System Expansion" with a $700 million TIFIA loan and a further increase in property tax.  Rogoff neglects to include the $700 million in the long-term  pandemic debt chart.  The Sound Transit Board had apparently previously approved a property tax increase, $125 for $500,000 home, to replace potential I-976 loss.

That remains in effect despite I-976 being invalidated and the board is being asked to impose an additional increase this year.  The Times apparently abets Sound Transit doing so with no clear indication as to what gave the Sound Transit the authority for either increase, what additional rate do they intend to ask for, and what limits that increase.

The Times abetting Sound Transit "spine" precludes a far better option to mitigate pandemic impact; use the existing funds to expedite the far less expensive West Seattle-to-Ballard link.  Thousands of additional Seattle commuters would benefit instead of existing Central Link riders losing access because of Lynnwood and Federal Way extension riders.

There would be no need for the TIFIA loan or the property tax increase.  The Times was right to suggest residents comment on "what's in the works" with Sound Transit's TPD.  It's even more important they stop abetting Rogoff incompetence by informing readers about better options than Rogoff's 2021 budget.  

ST CEO Rogoff Incompetent COVID-19 Response

The previous Sept. 30th post opined ST CEO Rogoff had failed to provide his 2021 budget detailing his response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  While Sound transit had detailed how service on all the transit modes will be adjusted it had not provided any information about the pandemic's effect on finances or on system expansion.

That was provided in an October 14th presentation to the Sound Transit Board Finance and Audit Committee, "Financial Plan update & Proposed 2021 Budget".  It can best be described as an "overview" with a series of charts showing the pandemic impact on both the "Long Range Financial Plan" and the "Proposed 2021 Budget".

The Long Range Financial Plan provides a reasonable explanation of the problem.  The loss in available resources and the increase in expenditures along with the reduction in allowable debt will result in $2.7B unfunded expenditures by 2041.  That even a "moderate recession" required a "Realignment" consisting of a 4-year delay for some projects to avoid the projected need for debt exceeding the available debt capacity. A more "severe recession" could make even a 5-year delay unaffordable.

The 4-year delay also reduced Sound Transit debt at the end in 2041 from $25B to $20B.  That's still more than the $17B projected prior to the pandemic (It's never been clear how Sound Transit intends to pay off either level once ST3 funding ends)

Rofoff incompetence is exemplified by the plan's Proposed 2021 Budget.  His "Major cost-saving initiatives in 2020-2021", eliminating 77 vacant positions is offset by his adding 42 positions.  He claims they're needed for system expansion while delaying the expansions for 4 years.  His 2021 revenue projection fare revenues will increase 64% with pandemic seems "optimistic".  The major "other" revenue was listed as $700M from TIFIA.

TIFIA apparently stands for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.  TIFIA called the loan, "The largest single TIFIA loan to a transit agency in the country and the second largest TIFIA loan overall in the 25-year history of the program".  Yet he neglects to include the apparent added $700M debt in the charts showing pandemic effects on debt.

Rogoff demonstrates further incompetence with how he to uses the funds in response to pandemic.  Rather than reducing 2021 "System Expansion" funding he increases it from $2.242B to $2.306B, funding his decision, "Current construction continues".

He refuses to recognize light rail extensions beyond Northgate or Angel Lake will do nothing to increase light rail capacity through DSTT or reduce I-5 congestion. That any riders added will reduce access to light rail for current riders.

Those extensions are the ones he should at least delay if not cancel.  Rather than delaying the West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail link for 4 years he should expedite their far less expensive construction, reducing the pandemic effect on debt.  Thousands of additional Seattle commuters would benefit instead of existing Central Link riders losing access because of Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions riders. 

Rogoff waits until page 41 of the 43 pages to mention his approach to increasing tax revenue with pandemic with following agenda:

11/5-Public Hearing--budget and property taxes 

11/5-Executive Committee--budget overview and property tax levy

11/19-Board Meeting--request for approval of a property tax levy

The  board had previously increased property taxes by $125.00 on a $500,000 home in response to I-976 passage.  Since I-976 was invalidated they could have ended that increase.  Instead it's not clear how much additional he intends to ask for, how this affects the debt problem, or what  limits the board authority to raise them. 

The bottom line is a competent transit CEO would have used the loss in funds as a reason to expedite the less expensive West Seattle-to-Ballard light rail link.  Thousands of Seattle residents would have benefitted and the debt at the end in 2041 would be far less.

CEO Rogoff didn't and isn't.

 

The Reality of Battery Powered Cars

The previous post detailed how the Benton County Public Utility Department had concluded the intermittent nature of wind power precluded it being a reliable source of power.  This post details the need to charge most EV batteries overnight means very little power will come from solar panels.  That CO2 emissions from natural gas power plants to charge EV batteries offsets the benefits of reduced CO2 with EVs. That CO2 emissions from coal power plants to power EV batteries will  exceed the CO2 reduction with EVs.

Governor Newsom recently announced California will prohibit the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-powered cars in 15 years.  His rationale  presumably being electric vehicle efficiency, 70%,  is 3.2 times the 22% efficiency for gasoline vehicles.

 EV  mileage commonly refers to how many miles they'll get from the 33.7 kW of electrical power in a gallon of gasoline.  At 65 mph an EV typically takes .375 kWh per mile.  Thus the EV effective miles per gallon is ~90 empg, a significant improvement over the 28 mpg  for gasoline powered vehicles.

The question becomes where do they get the .375 kWh supplied to the EV.  A hybrid car gets the power from its gasoline engine.  The efficiency of using electric power to drive the wheels rather than the engine typically increases mileage to ~ 55 mpg.  However the power for a "plug-in" EV has to come from other sources.  

The problem is, even in California, the vast majority of EV batteries will be charged over night when solar power is no longer generated.  Unless EV owners have some way of storing the electricity during the day, the electricity used will likely come from fossil fuel powered generators.  Clearly EV car use will not be CO2 free.

A gas turbine converts about 38% of its energy into electrical power.  That loss along with loss during transmission results in it taking 2.8776 kWh of energy at the source to supply a kW to the car, reducing EV mileage to 31.2 empg.   A/C and heat under "ideal driving conditions" at 65 mph would reportedly drop EV empg ~10% on a new car and 18% on a 4.5 year old battery to 27.5 empg.  More severe conditions could drop empg by 25% on a new car and 30% on a 4.5-yer old car reducing mileage to 21.8 empg.  By comparison the 3% loss in a gasoline powered car from A/C and heat is presumable reflected in the 28 mpg rating.  Clearly there is very little mileage gain from EV power.

An EV battery currently costs about $100 for every kWh stored.  At .375 kWh per mile, an EV would require a battery costing $10,000 to travel 250 miles between charges.  Charging the battery coud take several hours.  The cost associated with storing gasoline in either a conventional or hybrid is minimal as is the time to "recharge"it.  It's a question of whether the cost of adding electric motors to drive the wheel rather than the engine outweighs the fuel savings.

The EV's principle benefit is their reduction in CO2 emissions.  Burning a gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2, so a car averaging 28 mpg will emit .71 lbs of CO2 a mile.  Natural gas combustion produces 117 lbs of CO2 per million BTU or 289.3 kW or .40 lbs per kW   Assuming .375 kW per mile at the meter and 1.08 kW at the source,  .43 lbs of CO2 will be emitted at the power station per EV mile, 40% less than a gasoline powered car.  (However a hybrid vehicle getting 55 miles from 20 lbs of CO2 would emit only .36 lbs of CO2 a mile.)

Again, A/C, heat, normal driving conditions, and age would increase  EV power generated CO2 emissions .  Their effects on gasoline engine and hybrid vehicles are presumably reflected in their 28 mpg and 55 mpg ratings.

Meanwhile in states using coal, 228 lbs of CO2 are emitted to generate the 289.3kW.  That equates to .79 lbs of CO2 per kW.  Again assuming the .375 kW per mile at the meter and the1.08 kW at the source, .85 lbs of CO2 will be emitted to power the  EV a mile, 20% more than a gasoline powered car averaging 28 mpg.  (Again real life operation would increase that penalty) 

That should give pause to those advocating EVs.

Washington State blows away wind fantasies

(The following, from the "Waat's Up With That" website, is another example of the futility of attempts to end the state's fossil fuel power sources)

Ronald Stein October 12th 2020

The Northwest has spoken loudly as the Benton Public Utility District (BPUD) has documented their actual battleground experiences  with intermittent electricity from wind farms that should be a wake-up call to our policy makers.  Their message is "no more wind"

The Washington state utility 16-page report titled "Wind Power and Clean Energy Policy Perspective" of July 14, 2020 provides a devastating counter attack to the wind lobbyists that they question the efficacy of wind farms for power generation and resulted in the utility's commissioners saying they "do not support further wind power development in the Northwest".

Kudos to this Washington state public utility for speaking up after seeing the costs and dangers of California's experience with an over reliance on intermittent electricity from wind and solar.  In a statement and report, the utility said overly aggressive clean energy policies bring about an unacceptably high risk of power grid blackouts.

They go on to say the development of wind farms may be "politically fashionable" and appeal to many in the general public, but science and economics show that attempting to power modern civilization with intermittent electricity from wind and solar will come at a high financial and environmental cost.

The report is consistent with what has happened in Germany and Australia, as power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe.  Today, German households pay almost 50% more for electricity than they did in 2006.  Shockingly, America, from California to New York, continues to take giant steps toward following Germany's failed climate goals which should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere.

Rebutting 60 Minute California Burning Segment

 (The following is from the "Waat's Up With That" website)

By James Taylor from Climaterealism.com

Prominent scientist and climate activist Michael Mann appealed to an asserted scientific consensus to chastise President Donald Trump on CBS's 60 Minutes program last night.  Ironically Mann himself ignored clear scientific consensus in order to promote his own out-of-the mainstream climate change theories.

While interviewing Mann, CBS"s Scott Pelley said, "There have always been fires in the West.  There have always been hurricanes in the East.  How do we know that climate change is involved in this?' Pelley followed up with, "The president says about climate change, 'Science doesn't know'".

Replied Mann,  "The president doesn't know, and he should know better.  He should know that the world's leading scientific organizations, our own U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and national academies of every major industrial nation, every scientific society in the United States that's weighed in on the matter.  This is a scientific consensus.  There's about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity"

Mann's description of the conclusions of the "scientific consensus " however, is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report.

As documented in "Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes", the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change (IPCC) expresses "low confidence" in any connection between climate change and changes in hurricane activity.

Similarly, as documented in "Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires," U.S. wildfires are much less frequent and severe  than they were in the first half of the 20th century -- 100 years of global warming ago.  Moreover the IPCC reports a decrease in drought conditions- which is primary climate factor regarding wildfires- in the global region including the U.S. West.  Moreover, the IPCC finds no evidence of an increase in drought globally, either.

Ultimately, data, evidence, and scientific facts are far more indicative of scientific truth that a real or imagined consensus of scientist. Yet, to the extent Michael Mann wishes to invoke consensus as a scientific argument, the clear consensus of scientists is that Mann is promoting extreme climate theories that have no basis in reality