Advertisements

IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote

Schoorsteen-CO2.jpg

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the demonisation of essential trace gas and plant fertiliser, carbon dioxide. A by-product of hydrocarbon energy production that “has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality and remains the grand patsy and key driver of the climate crisis industry…

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

*

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

•••

FOR years, unreliable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines and solar panels are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines and solar panels are nothing more than token gestures to the folly of green madness.

THE proliferation of renewables unreliables over the past decade has not, and will not, result in statistically significant reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions. That point can easily be proven by analysis of the country that has poured more money into ‘green’ energy than any other – Germany…

Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions…”Bitter Result”

German CO2 equivalent emissions refuse to budge 10 straight years running, despite hundreds of BILLIONS invested in green energies.

Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions … “Bitter Result”

As we have been hearing recently, global CO2 emissions continue their steady climb, despite the trillions of dollars committed to green energy sources worldwide and efforts to curb CO2 emissions.

Global-CO2-emissions-2017-768x382

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA).

Looking at countries individually, Germany, a self-designated “leader” for carbon free energies, saw its equivalent CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 fall only a measly half a percent.

Big green talk, so little to show
If any country has seen huge chasm between its CO2 reductions performance and its lofty green rhetoric, Germany is it.

Despite the hundreds of billions already spent on green energies, mainly, wind, sun and biogas, Paris Accord cheerleader Germany has not seen any progress in CO2 reductions ten years running:

Germany-2017-CO2-levels-768x491

Germany CO2 equivalent emissions, millions of metric tons. Source UBA.

According to Germany’s UBA Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), Germany’s reductions still remain stuck at the levels of 10 years ago (2009 = 908 million tonnnes CO2 equivalent – see chart above).

Dubious 1990 benchmark
Most of the country’s CO2 reductions since 1990 arose from the shutdown of old communist run East German industry, after the eastern and western parts of the divided nation united in 1990.

Offshored emissions, pollution
Also huge CO2 reductions resulted from the offshoring of energy-intensive industries, to countries where regulations are less strict, labor is cheaper and energy efficiency is woefully lower; for example: China. The true result: Germany managed to cut its CO2 equivalent emissions, but the net result is most likely greater overall CO2 emissions.

The same could be said about plastic in our oceans. Often it’s best to keep the industry home, where at least it’s done far more cleanly.

Huge price for so little result
Moreover, Germany’s investment in green energies really did not begin in earnest until 2005, and so the results have been truly a flop. All that money for so little.

Meanwhile environmental groups have come out and blasted Germany’s weakling result. Alarmist climate and energy site Klimaretter (Climate rescuer) commented here: “Germany is practically making no climate change progress at all.”

Greenpeace Germany’s Karsten Smid fumed: “The UBA figures are the bitter result of Chancellor Merkel’s climate policy.”

Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions…”Bitter Result” | No Tricks Zone

•••

“Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built”

ANOTHER must read analysis via NTZ showing that the more wind and solar added to the grid, the more fossil-fuel backup energy is needed to cover for the times when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine!

Analysis: Adding More Solar, Wind Power Increases Dependence On Fossil Fuels, ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions

As the reputed world leader in green energy policy, Germany plans to eliminate nuclear power as an energy source in the next 5 years.

2011 decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022  has meant that renewables like wind and solar power are expected to swiftly take the place of nuclear energy on the German power grid.  The portion of Germany’s power generation from wind and solar (renewables) has indeed risen dramatically in the last 10 years:

 

germany-power-generation-source-2015-copy

Image source (cleanenergywire.org)

Germany’s “green” leadership and vociferous allegiance to renewables as a dominant power generation source has elicited controversy.  Wind and solar are very labor and material-intensive (expensive) energy sources, and the dramatic rise in solar and wind power capacity has come with great financial expense to German citizens.  Poorer households have long been the most adversely affected.  Dating back to 2000, electricity prices have risen by 80% in Germany, leaving 7 million citizens “energy poor” (meaning that more than 10% of their income has to be spent on heating and electrifying their homes).

Analysis by the European Commission indicates that “nearly 11% of the EU’s population [encompassing 54 million people] are in a situation where they live in  households in which they find themselves unable to heat their homes at an affordable cost,” which may effectively put their lives at risk.   This latter point is not an exaggeration.  In the UK, where heating costs rose 63% between 2009 and 2014, 25% of citizens over 60 are classified as “energy poor”, leaving the elderly population especially vulnerable.  During the frigid winter of 2014, the number of “excess winter deaths” reached 49,260, of which about 14,780  were due to people living in cold homes that they couldn’t afford to heat.

*

Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built

What’s happening in Germany is, unfortunately, a bellwether for what is to come in other large wealthy countries attempting to make renewables the kingpin of their power grids.  The unspoken truth about renewables was succinctly summarized in a 2012 Los Angeles Times analysis :

“As more solar and wind generators come online, … the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.”

The full article, entitled “Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels”  also points out that wind turbines often produce a tiny fraction (1 percent?) of their claimed potential, meaning the gap must be filled by fossil fuels:

Read on…

H/t Stop These Things

•••

UPDATE

New Papers: Intermittent Wind Power PRESERVES & INCREASES Need For Fossil Fuel Energy Generation

⇑ Wind Power Installation Amplifies

The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies

[A]s RES [renewable energy sources] increases, the expected decreasing tendency in the installed capacity of electricity generation from fossil fuels has not been found.” – Marques et al., 2018
Wind-Power-Provokes-Need-For-More-Fossil-Fuels-Marques-2018

Wind Power Installation Amplifies The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies – Marques et al., 2018


In late 2012, a prophetic article appeared in the Los Angeles Times that warned:

More-Renewables-More-Fossil-Fuels-As-Backup-LA-Times-2012

Image Source: LA Times

Wind turbines cannot produce energy when the wind is not blowing.   Consequently, wind power routinely needs to be backed up by reliable and immediately-available energy sources — which are often fossil fuels-based (gas, oil, coal).

So as wind power installation expands across the world, more fossil fuel plants will need to be built to back them up.

Full report here…

•••

See also :

Unreliable-Energy Poverty related :

Energiewende Fail related :

Plant Food CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :

Advertisements


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.