Advertisements

WHY “Green” Energy Is Futile, In One Lesson

Greening The Land (high res) - Cartoons By Josh

Greening The Land | Cartoons By Josh


“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)

***

H/t @FriendsOScience

A MUST READ for all policy makers if they have any respect for the families, workers and the most vulnerable in their communities whose lives are being broken as a consequence of the mad rush into feel-good UNreliables – wind and solar ‘power’…


WHY “GREEN” ENERGY IS FUTILE, IN ONE LESSON

POSTED ON BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN ENERGY POLICY, ENVIRONMENT

Here in Minnesota, we are enduring a brutal stretch of weather. The temperature hasn’t gotten above zero in the last three days, with lows approaching -30. And that is in the Twin Cities, in the southern part of the state. Yesterday central Minnesota experienced a natural gas “brownout,” as Xcel Energy advised customers to turn thermostats down to 60 degrees and avoid using hot water. Xcel put up some customers in hotels. Why?

Because the wind wasn’t blowing. Utilities pair natural gas plants with wind farms, in order to burn gas, which can be ramped up and down more quickly than coal, when the wind isn’t blowing.

Which raises the question: since natural gas is reliable, why do we need the wind farms? The answer is, we don’t. When the wind isn’t blowing–as it wasn’t yesterday–natural gas supplies the electricity. It also heats homes, and with bitter cold temperatures and no wind, there wasn’t enough natural gas to go around. The resulting “brownout” has been a political shock in Minnesota.

Isaac Orr, a leading energy expert who is my colleague at Center of the American Experiment, explains this phenomenon in detail:

[W]ind is producing only four percent of electricity in the MISO region, of which Minnesota is a part.

While that’s not good, what’s worse is wind is only utilizing 24 percent of its installed capacity, and who knows how this will fluctuate throughout the course of the day.

Coal, on the other hand, is churning out 45 percent of our power, nuclear is providing 13 percent, and natural gas is providing 26 percent of our electricity.

This is exactly why the renewable energy lobby’s dream of shutting down coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants and “replacing” them with wind and solar is a fairy tale. It simply cannot happen, because we never know if and when the wind will blow or the sun will shine when we need it most.

“But the wind is always blowing somewhere” ~ a renewable energy lobbyist

Renewable energy apologists often argue that although the wind may not be blowing in your neighborhood, it’s blowing, somewhere. All we have to do, they argue, is build wind turbines and transmission lines all over the country so we can have renewable energy everywhere. It turns out this old chestnut is also completely wrong.

For example, the wind isn’t blowing in North Dakota or South Dakota, where more than 1,800 MW (a massive amount) of wind projects are operating or planned, at massive cost, by Minnesota electric companies.

In fact, the wind isn’t blowing anywhere.

Just look at California, the state that is consistently the most self-congratulating about how “green” they are. Wind is operating a 3 percent of installed capacity, solar is operating at 12 percent, natural gas is running wide open, and California is importing a whopping 27 percent of its electricity from Nevada and Arizona.
***
Days like today perfectly illustrate why intermittent, unreliable sources of energy like wind and solar would have no place in our energy system if they were not mandated by politicians, showered with federal subsidies, and lining the pockets of regulated utilities that are guaranteed to profit off wind and solar farms whether they are generating electricity, or not.

Isaac’s real-world message is starting to break through, at least here in Minnesota. Tomorrow morning the Star Tribune is running Isaac’s op-ed headlined “Bitter cold shows reliable energy sources are critical.”

Lawmakers considering doubling Minnesota’s renewable energy mandate to 50 percent by 2030 should use this week’s weather as a moment to reconsider their plans to lean so heavily on wind and solar.
***
[C]oal-fired power plants provided 45 percent of MISO’s power and nuclear provided 13 percent — most of this from Minnesota’s Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear plants (which we should keep open, by the way). Natural gas provided 26 percent of our electricity use at that time, and the remainder was imported from Canada and other U.S. states.

Natural gas also heated the homes of approximately 66 percent of Minnesotans this week, by far the most for any home heating fuel, but there wasn’t enough gas to combat the frigid temperatures.

Because of the extreme cold, Xcel Energy urged its natural gas customers in Becker, Big Lake, Chisago City, Lindstrom, Princeton and Isanti to reduce the settings on their thermostats, first down to 60 degrees, then to 63, through Thursday morning to conserve enough natural gas to prevent a widespread shortage as temperatures remained 14 below zero. Some Xcel customers in the Princeton area lost gas service, and Xcel reserved rooms for them in nearby hotels.

This week’s urgent notice from Xcel to conserve natural gas shows there is real danger in putting all of our eggs into the renewables-plus-natural gas basket. At a minimum, pursuing a grid powered entirely by solar, wind and natural gas would require more natural gas pipeline capacity, which is likely to be opposed by the factions that are currently challenging the replacement of the Line 3 pipeline.
***
If Minnesota lawmakers are sincere in their belief that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible, they must lift Minnesota’s ban on new nuclear power plants, which has been in place since 1994.

Not only would nuclear power plants be essentially guaranteed to run in minus-24-degree weather, but a forthcoming study by American Experiment has found that new nuclear power plants could not only achieve a lower emissions rate by 2030, but also save Minnesota $30.2 billion through 2050.

Stay tuned. We will release that report in two weeks. I think it will be a bombshell, not only in Minnesota but in other states that are fecklessly mandating ever-higher utilization of intermittent, unreliable, inefficient “green” energy.

•••

UNreliables related :

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

CLIMATISM : 2019 State Of The Climate Report

CLIMATISM - State Of The Climate 2019.png

CLIMATISM – 2019 State Of The Climate Report


CONTRARY to popular thinking and clever marketing, there is no “consensus” on the theory of dangerous man-made climate change. Too many variables exist within the climate system to allow for certainty of future scenarios.

THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.

BUOYED by their recent House Congress win in the 2018 mid-term elections, the hard-Left of the American Democrat party, led by pinup-socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have doubled-down on their pet global warming theory, proposing the radically-dystopian climate agenda, a Green New Deal.

ACCORDING to PJMedia, the Green New Deal will cost approximately $49.109 Trillion in the first ten years, enough to fund Trump’s border wall 8,616 times over.

FOR all the economic pain and social upheaval that inevitably ensues when draconian climate policy is enacted, it is only fair and reasonable for the taxpayer to ask one simple question about a climate which demands so much of their hard-earned money – “what is broken?”.

THE best way to answer this is to look at the current state of a set of common environmental metrics and analyse their relationship with carbon dioxide – the colourless, odourless, tasteless trace gas at the centre of the supposed “climate crisis”.

CLIMATE CHANGE METRICS

  • ARCTIC
  • ANTARCTIC
  • EXTREME WEATHER (Heatwaves, Cyclones, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Drought, Floods)
  • SEA LEVELS
  • SNOW
  • POLAR BEARS
  • WILDFIRES
  • GLOBAL GREENING
  • GLOBAL FOOD PRODUCTION
  • GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

IN the interests of “cherry-picking”, there are a myriad of environmental metrics that make up the climate system. The examples cited for the purpose of this report are the more common associations picked up by the press and interest groups to facilitate climate change discussion and ‘debate’.

*THE empirical evidence featured in this post is taken from the latest data supplied by government scientific agencies and peer-reviewed studies. Hyper and direct links supplied per sample.

***

ARCTIC

STATE OF ARCTIC SEA-ICE : 2018 SUMMER MINIMUM

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT (September 2018)

MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past decade. The EXACT opposite of what the press and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE

ARCTIC sea-ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median:

ARCTIC sea-ice extent is essentially unchanged since January 2006:

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE VOLUME

THE area of the Arctic covered with thick sea ice has greatly expanded over the past eleven years:

SO far this month, ice volume gain has seen a record high:

january1-9arcticseaicevolumeincrease_shadow

Jan Arctic Sea-Ice Volume gain historic

AND January 9 Arctic sea ice volume has been increasing for over a decade:

*Support data Via Real Climate Science

MINIMUM sea-ice volume has been rising since 2007:

dtpq2wcvaaab84w

@KiryeNet キリエ on Twitter : “The Arctic has been refreezing for 12 years…minimum sea ice volume has been rising since 2007”

*

ARCTIC TEMPS 

ARCTIC temperatures correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles, and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels.

reykjavik-iceland-temperatures-vs-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

*

ALARMIST MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARCTIC HYSTERIA

CLIMATE ‘experts’ describe these record large increases in ice as an unprecedented meltdown:

2019-01-11060118_shadow-789x1024

“Arctic meltdown” search

SEE also : CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

*

MORE on Arctic Sea-Ice Expansion :

***

ANTARCTIC

THE South Pole has been a thorn in the side for warming alarmists with the giant ice continent gaining mass and cooling for decades. This despite a 20 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

2015 NASA STUDY

GUARDIAN REPORT 2015

2016 NATURE STUDY

2017 STUDY

*

WHAT’S DRIVING ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE GROWTH?

THANKS to the Journal of Climate by Josefino Comiso et al, we now know what’s driving the increase in Antarctic sea-ice. It’s – wait for it – cooling temperatures over the ocean surrounding Antarctica…

screen-shot-2018-04-16-at-7-23-27-am

Positive Trend in the Antarctic Sea Ice Cover and Associated Changes in Surface Temperature: Journal of Climate: Vol 30, No 6

*

2016 SEA-ICE LOSS

DURING 2016 there was substantial sea-ice loss which still reflects on the record and has become a popular talking point for warmists aiming to discredit the Antarctic with its stable and ‘inconvenient’ ice growth over many decades.

after increasing slightly in recent decades, the sea ice extent around antarctica plummeted in 2016. credit malte stuecker:university of washington

After increasing slightly in recent decades, the sea ice extent around Antarctica plummeted in 2016. CREDIT Malte Stuecker/University of Washington

*

HOWEVER, sound ‘science’ confirmed this was due, not to human-induced “climate change” but thanks to a ‘perfect storm’ of tropical, polar conditions’ :

“This was a really rare combination of events, something that we have never seen before in the observations,” Stuecker said.

SEE more : Record-low 2016 Antarctic sea ice was due to a ‘perfect storm’ of tropical, polar conditions – not ‘climate change’ | Watts Up With That?

*

LATEST DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 ANTARCTICA ANOMALY NSIDC

ANTARCTICA monthly sea-ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median:

ANTARCTICA daily sea-ice extent, close to the 1981-2010 median:

THESE charts at odds with NSIDC SH anomaly 1978-2018… (There has been some massive ice growth since I last checked the “blue marble” charts. Both are now back to the 1981-2010 median!?)

C/w …

*

2018 ANTARCTIC, BACK-ON-TRACK

APRIL 2018 : BBC was reporting on a big increase in Antarctic snowfall with “The effect of the extra snow locked up in Antarctica is to slightly slow a general trend in global sea-level rise.”

*

MAY 2018

*

SOUTH POLE ON STILTS!

ANOTHER unique way of knowing that the Antarctic ice mass is growing significantly, year in, year out, is by the structural design of the Amundson-Scott South Pole Station:

Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 8.24.05 pm.png

Amundson-Scott South Pole Station

THIS is the third station built at this site. The other two have been buried by snow! (see black dome of previous station now partially buried, top right of pic)

FOR the last several decades, Antarctica has been accumulating about 8 inches of snow every year and as temps never get above freezing, the snow never melts!

THE new building comprises 7 modular buildings that sit on stilts. Every year they jack up the buildings over the accumulating snow to prolong the life if the station:

Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 8.28.05 pm.png

Stilts on each of the 7 modulars

*

THE South Pole represents 90% of the earth’s ice, and it’s getting thicker. A problem for climate alarmists and their contradictory UN climate models.

*

BUT, KEEP PANICKING!

ANY sign of ‘warming’ at the inconvenient South Pole sends the climate-theory-obsessed mainstream media into a collective meltdown.

A recent and ongoing example being the discovery of melt occurring along the Western Antarctic ice shelf caused by recently discovered undersea volcanoes, not by evil mankind’s gasses:

WEST-ANTARCTIC DOOMSDAY MEDIA …

  • West Antarctic ice sheet collapse ‘unstoppable’ [ABC]
  • Irreversible Changes Now Affect Antarctica and the World [Live-science]
  • ‘Nothing can stop retreat’ of West Antarctic glaciers [BBC, By Jonathan Amos]
  • West Antarctic ice collapse ‘could drown Middle East and Asia crops’ [The Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg]
  • Antarctica’s ice collapse threatens metres of sea level rise within decades [The Ecologist]
  • Global warming: it’s a point of no return in West Antarctica. [The Guardian Eric Rignot]

*

MORE on Antarctica :

*

LATEST ANTARCTIC “MELT” SCARE STORY JUST IN (Worth a read) :

***

EXTREME WEATHER

EXTREME WEATHER, the Climate Crisis Industries most revered weapon of mass hysteria has been scuttled, once again, by their very own authority, the UN IPCC! The latest report – SR15 – released in October 2018 by the UN’s holiest ‘science’ body finding, yet again, that there is “little basis or evidence” for claiming that heatwaves, drought, floods, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes have increased due to greenhouse gas emissions!

BUT, alas! Just as the “low confidence” extreme weather findings from the last SREX report (IPCC AR5 2013) were/are conveniently dismissed by the mainstream media and climate crusaders, so too will the latest ‘inconvenient’ findings from the SR15 ‘Special Report’.

WE know this to be true because the mainstream media and virtue-signalling politicians still manage to blame man-made ‘Climate Change’ for every weather climate event – exceptional or tepid.

IPCC AR5 / SREX (2013) :

***

HEATWAVES

ACCORDING to the EPA, the low-CO2 1930s had (by far) the worst heatwaves in US history:

***

AUSTRALIAN TROPICAL CYCLONES

AUSTRALIAN tropical cyclones are declining in both intensity and frequency as CO2 rises:

Read the rest of this entry »


GREAT BARRIER REEF SCIENTIST : Coral Can Take The Heat, Unlike ‘Experts’ Crying Wolf

CRYING WOLF - Great Barrier Reef - CLIMATISM

Crying Wolf : Great Barrier Reef Alarmism | CLIMATISM


“THE journalists come up and they’re not interested in what the truth is. They’re only interested in finding out where the ‘dead’ reef is. And when people who work right up and down the reef can’t actually take them to a single place that is going to suit their dooms-day story, then we sort of need a bit of balance…”
Paul Talbott : GBR Tourist operator

***

STRAIGHT-TALKING former James Cook University marine geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has been an outspoken critic of the relentless tide of fear-mongering, misinformation and anti-science hysteria advanced by climate change activists concerning the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

IN June of 2016, Ridd made the headlines after suspecting something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the apparent rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef:

AFTER attempting to blow the whistle on the bogus pictures, Ridd was censured and subsequently sacked by James Cook University. (Ridd is currently suing JCU)

After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”!

His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.” Graham Lloyd – The Australian – 11 June 2016

SIMILAR totalitarian treatment was dished out by free-thinking James Cook University to the late and great Bob Carter, a former JCU adjunct Professor. Carter was a world renowned climate change expert and sceptic. His crime – speaking outside the permitted doctrine of global warming climate change.

*

PROFESSOR RIDD writes an ever insightful and eye-opening piece on the reef in today’s Australian.

RIDD comments on the recent backtracking by Scientists from James Cook University who just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected…

*

Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf

PETER RIDD

Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.

It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.

To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.

The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.DSC100583096

Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.

But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.

Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.

They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.

The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.

However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun. 1493256728125

A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.

But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.

A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.

This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.

This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.whitsundays-seaplane

But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.

But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.

Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.

Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf | The Australian

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


NOTE TO POLICY MAKERS : 41 Reasons Why Wind ‘Power’ Can Not Replace Fossil Fuels

INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES - THE FLAWS - CLIMATISM

INDUSTRIAL Wind Turbines Are Neither “Clean, Green or Renewable” | CLIMATISM


Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)

***

WESTERN climate-theory-obsessed politicians continue their ruinous and costly obsession with wind and solar ‘energy’. ‘UNreliables‘ that repeatedly fail the environment, communities and economies wherever installed.

ENERGY poverty, blackouts, skyrocketing power bills, grid instability and the destruction of pristine landscapes, (flora and fauna) among the many deleterious effects of low energy-density, weather and fossil-fuel dependent windmills and solar panels.

ALICE Friedemann of ‘Energy Skeptic‘ meticulously lays out 41 reasons that expose the colossal flaws of the mad rush into wind ‘power’ as a genuine replacement for fossil fuels and/or nuclear power. Economy and job-destroying, anti-energy policy initiatives undertaken by all-too-many in our current ruling class that defy all logic, reason and common sense based on easily verifiable data and on-the-ground evidence.

*

41 Reasons why wind power can not replace fossil fuels

 

Preface. Electricity simply doesn’t substitute for all the uses of fossil fuels, so windmills will never be able to reproduce themselves from the energy they generate — they are simply not sustainable.  Consider the life cycle of a wind turbine – giant diesel powered mining trucks and machines dig deep into the earth for iron ore, fossil-fueled ships take the ore to a facility that will crush it and permeate it with toxic chemicals to extract the metal from the ore, the metal will be taken in a diesel truck or locomotive to a smelter which runs exclusively on fossil fuels 24 x 7 x 365 for up to 22 years (any stoppage causes the lining to shatter so intermittent electricity won’t do). There are over 8,000 parts to a wind turbine which are delivered over global supply chains via petroleum-fueled ships, rail, air, and trucks to the assembly factory. Finally diesel cement trucks arrive at the wind turbine site to pour many tons of concrete and other diesel trucks carry segments of the wind turbine to the site and workers who drove gas or diesel vehicles to the site assemble it.

Here are the topics covered below in this long post:

  1. Windmills require petroleum every single step of their life cycle. If they can’t replicate themselves using wind turbine generated electricity, they are not sustainable
  2. SCALE. Too many windmills needed to replace fossil fuels
  3. SCALE. Wind turbines can’t be scaled up fast enough to replace fossils
  4. Not enough rare earth metals and enormous amounts of cement, steel, and other materials required
  5. Not enough dispatchable power to balance wind intermittency and unreliability
  6. Wind blows seasonally, so for much of there year there wouldn’t be enough wind
  7. When too much wind is blowing for the grid to handle, it has to be curtailed and/or drives electricity prices to zero, driving natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants out of business
  8. The best wind areas will never be developed
  9. The Grid Can’t Handle Wind Power without natural gas, which is finite
  10. The role of the grid is to keep the supply of power steady and predictable. Wind does the opposite, at some point of penetration it may become impossible to keep the grid from crashing.
  11. The grid blacks out when the supply of power varies too much. Eventually too much wind penetration will crash the grid.
  12. Windmills wouldn’t be built without huge subsidies and tax breaks
  13. Tremendous environmental damage from mining material for windmills
  14. Not enough time to scale wind up
  15. The best wind is too high or remote to capture
  16. Too many turbines could affect Earth’s climate negatively
  17. Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant global warming. A Harvard study raises questions about just how much wind should be part of a climate solution
    Less wind can be captured than thought (see Max Planck Society)
  18. Wind is only strong enough to justify windmills in a few regions
  19. The electric grid needs to be much larger than it is now
  20. Wind blows the strongest when customer demand is the weakest
  21. No utility scale energy storage in sight
  22. Wind Power surges harm industrial customers
  23. Energy returned on Energy Invested is negative
  24. Windmills take up too much space
  25. Wind Turbines break down too often
  26. Large-scale wind energy slows down winds and reduces turbine efficiencies
  27. Offshore Wind Farms likely to be destroyed by Hurricanes
  28. The costs of lightning damage are too high
  29. Wind doesn’t reduce CO2
  30. Turbines increase the cost of farming
  31. Offshore Windmills battered by waves, wind, ice, corrosion, a hazard to ships and ecosystems
  32. Wind turbines are far more expensive than they appear to be
  33. Wind turbines are already going out of business and fewer built in Europe
  34. TRANSPORTATION LIMITATIONS: Windmills are so huge they’ve reached the limits of land transportation by truck or rail
  35. Windmills may only last 12 to 15 years, or at best 20 years
  36. Not In My Back Yard – NIMBYism
  37. Lack of a skilled and technical workforce
  38. Wind only produces electricity, what we face is a liquid fuels crisis
  39. Wind has a low capacity Factor
  40. Dead bugs and salt reduce wind power generation by 20 to 30%
  41. Small windmills too expensive, too noisy, unreliable, and height restricted

Alice Friedemann :  www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

41 Reasons why wind power can not replace fossil fuels | Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge

CLICK here for detailed expansion of each of the 41 points…

***

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine

wind-and-oil-climatism

TO Get Wind Power You Need Oil


“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers

***

AN extremely inconvenient insight into the monumental amount of “dirty” fossil fuel derivatives required to manufacture, install and maintain so-called “green”, “clean” and “renewable” industrial wind turbines…

(Climatism images, links and bolds added)

*

To Get Wind Power You Need Oil

Each wind turbine embodies a whole lot of petrochemicals and fossil-fuel energy

 

WIND turbines are the most visible symbols of the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels.

Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone averages [pdf] 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles (which house the gearbox and generator), and 500 metric tons for the towers.

If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030 (forecast [pdf] to reach about 30 petawatt-hours), then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel. And that’s without counting the metal for towers, wires, and transformers for the new high-voltage transmission links that would be needed to connect it all to the grid.

A lot of energy goes into making steel. Sintered or pelletized iron ore is smelted in blast furnaces, charged with coke made from coal, and receives infusions of powdered coal and natural gas. Pig iron is decarbonized in basic oxygen furnaces. Then steel goes through continuous casting processes (which turn molten steel directly into the rough shape of the final product). Steel used in turbine construction embodies typically about 35 gigajoules per metric ton.

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

A 5-MW turbine has three roughly 60-meter-long airfoils, each weighing about 15 metric tons. They have light balsa or foam cores and outer laminations made mostly from glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy or polyester resins. The glass is made by melting silicon dioxide and other mineral oxides in furnaces fired by natural gas. The resins begin with ethylene derived from light hydrocarbons, most commonly the products of naphtha cracking, liquefied petroleum gas, or the ethane in natural gas.

Windkraft_Infografik_03_cs4_E_240310

Rotor blade structure

The final fiber-reinforced composite embodies on the order of 170 GJ/t. Therefore, to get 2.5 TW of installed wind power by 2030, we would need an aggregate rotor mass of about 23 million metric tons, incorporating the equivalent of about 90 million metric tons of crude oil. And when all is in place, the entire structure must be waterproofed with resins whose synthesis starts with ethylene. Another required oil product is lubricant, for the turbine gearboxes, which has to be changed periodically during the machine’s two-decade lifetime.

wind_turbine_gearbox_parts_washer

Wind Turbine Gearbox

Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies. Moreover, for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.

Wind Turbine Crude Oil 2

Wind Industry Crude Oil Mining

For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels.

This article appears in the March 2016 print issue as “What I See When I See a Wind Turbine.”

To Get Wind Power You Need Oil – IEEE Spectrum

*

WIND ENERGY – not as “clean”, “green” or “renewable” as the bumper sticker suggests!

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


BBC’s Latest Climate Indoctrination

BRUTAL and comprehensive rebuttal by Paul Homewood to the latest climate agitprop out of the taxpayer funded BBC, released in time to further pollute the minds of their readers as they focus on the UN COP24 climate junket in Katowice, Poland.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

The BBC have now stopped even trying to camouflage their bias on climate change, with this latest piece of propaganda:

image

Representatives from nearly 200 countries are gathering in Poland for talks on climate change – aimed at breathing new life into the Paris Agreement.

The UN has warned the 2015 Paris accord’s goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2C above pre-industrial levels” is in danger because major economies, including the US and the EU, are falling short of their pledges.

But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the leading international body on global warming – last month argued the 2C Paris pledge didn’t go far enough. The global average temperature rise actually needed to be kept below 1.5C, they said.

So how warm has the world got and what can we do about it?

The world is now…

View original post 1,824 more words


PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE : The Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global And Warmer Than Today

THE Medieval Warm Period - A global Phenomenon - CLIMATISM

The Medieval Warm Period – A Global Phenomenon


No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President UN Foundation

***

WHEN prosecuting the case for “unprecedented” man-made Global Warming, the first thing you need to make sure of is that no recent climate era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your narrative.

THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (due to conditions favoured for crops, life and civilisation to thrive) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side, ever since, for today’s Global Warming Climate Change activist movement.

*

IN the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century:

*

THE IPCC’s 1990 report dives deeper into the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and provides an insight into the cause of these warming periods:

“This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.

IPCC WG1 Report 1990 (p202)

*

BY the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century:

hockeystick

Mikey Mann Hockeystick

*

BY pure coincidence, in the year 1995 the IPCC made a decision to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear:

David Deming Senate Testimony

David Deming Senate Testimony

*

YOUTUBE clip of Dr David Deming’s US Senate testimony on the “disappearance” of the Medieval Warm Period (see 01m:50s) :

Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.

IN case you missed it…

“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.””

Statement of Dr. David Deming | U.S. Senate Committee

*

THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD : GLOBAL and PEER REVIEWED

ACCORDING to multiple lines of “peer-reviewed science”, the Medieval Warm Period was indeed ‘global’ and was as warm, if not warmer than today.

CLICK here for excellent interactive map of clickable peer-reviewed MWP studies in both North and Southern Hemispheres :

*

THE ‘INCONVENIENT’ PAST

THERE is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s so-called Global Warming aka Climate Change.

LOOK at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.

CIVILISATIONS flourished during those warm periods (“climate optimums”), and collapsed when they ended.

DID humans cause the Minoan warm period of about 3,300 years ago?

DID humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?

DID humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?

WHAT about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?

greenland-ice-core-proxy

via @BigJoeBastardi | Twitter

IF the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.

ALL this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.

* Read the rest of this entry »