DEAR German “Greens”, who played a major government and activist role in phasing out (CO2-free) nuclear energy, via Fukushima hysteria, and implementing the economic and environmental disastrous #Energiewende, I repeat to you again – “careful what you wish for”!
By Paul Homewood
A 19th century church in Germany was demolished this week to make way for coal mining.
St Lambertus Cathedral – a church known by locals as Immerather Dom – in Immerath, a tiny farming village northwest of Cologne, was razed to the ground on Tuesday.
The double-spired church, thought to have been built between 1880 and 1890, was torn down in the latest step in energy company RWE’s demolition of the entire village in a bid to expand its access to the region’s lignite supply.
Perhaps instead of lecturing Donald Trump, our climate conscious MPs should be complaining to Mrs Merkel.
Despite ‘green dreams’, EIA report projects fossil and nuclear fuels provide 83% of total world energy in 2040Posted: December 31, 2017
FROM the department of reason trumps symbolic gestures to the climate gods …
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The latest EIA 2017 IEO report projects world energy consumption to increase by 28% from 2015 through 2040.
Non OECD countries (the developing nations-China, India, etc.) account for about 84% of this increased energy use with non OECD Asia making up the majority of this energy use growth.
Significant growth (43%) in natural gas use is projected in meeting the worlds total energy increase through 2040.
Petroleum and other liquid fuels use growth (18%) continues but at a slower pace than natural gas.
Coal energy use is projected to be stable during this period with declines in China offset by increased use in India.
Renewables (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, other) is the fastest growing energy source with wind, solar and natural gas supplying most of the electricity sector growth.
Renewables are projected to supply 31% of world electricity generation in 2040 the same as coal…
View original post 325 more words
“BUT…but…without the U.S, how do we fund our climate gabfests in every exotic corner of the world?! Jet travel, 5-star hotels, champagne and caviar cost money you know!” – Signed, concerned UN climate elites and environmental NGO’s.
While the COP23 climate conference is going on in Bon this week, there has been renewed wailing and gnashing of teeth over President Trump’s withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord this past summer. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn’t need to participate, but looking at this one graph, it becomes clear that other countries aren’t leading the way, not one bit. The USA leads by a large margin.
This is the graph climate alarmists and tax revenue trough feeders don’t want you to see:
h/t to Robert Wilson via Twitter
Some BONUS Graphs:
In absolute terms coal use has fallen far more in America this century than anywhere else:
Most of the growth in CO2 emissions this century came from modernizing economies. And China and India dominated:
“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
UPDATE on the cost to the taxpayer of politicians crazed obsession with global warming theory and the green faith, leading to the mad push for
renewable unreliable energy.
Via The Australian :
Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, about twice what the crumbling car industry received over 15 years and enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.
The government’s large and small-scale renewable energy targets, which will compel energy retailers to buy 33 terawatt hours of wind, solar and hydro energy by 2030, will deliver about $45bn of subsidies to renewable energy producers over 20 years, according to analysis by The Australian.
The grab bag of direct subsidies from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation — which have spent or lent concessionally, respectively, $870 million in grants since 2010, and $4.3bn since 2013 — are on top of that.
Meanwhile, the proposed clean energy target arising from the government’s Finkel review, would mandate a further 33TWh of energy from renewable sources, costing an extra $11.3bn over the 10 years to 2030.
Government MPs yesterday sounded the alarm over the subsidies and called for clarity over government plans for a new coal-fired power station.
The chairman of the Coalition backbench committee for energy, Craig Kelly, described the costs of the subsidies as an “appalling waste” resulting from an “ideological rush to renewables”.
“No one will ever be able to compute the full opportunity cost of the alternate productive assets that this capital could have been invested in,” Mr Kelly said.
“We already have some of the highest electricity prices in the world. And what industry will we still have if we go down this track?”
Victorian Nationals MP Andrew Broad, chairman of the standing committee on the environment and energy, said the RET should be scrapped to allow renewables to compete on merit.
“To spend all that money and still have expensive power prices means the settings are all wrong,” Mr Broad said.
The Productivity Commission found the automotive industry received the equivalent of about $30bn of industry assistance between 1997 and 2012. It estimated up to 40,000 people might lose their jobs following the withdrawal of Toyota, Holden and Ford as carmakers in Australia, including job losses along the supply chain.
The 39 renewable energy projects under construction or being completed this year have created 4400 jobs, according to the Clean Energy Council’s latest figures.
ACIL Allen Consulting chief executive Paul Hyslop yesterday told a parliamentary inquiry that it was more cost-effective to hold off any investment decisions in low-emissions technologies under renewable energy schemes until the “last possible minute”.
“Solar costs have probably fallen 75 to 80 per cent in the last six or seven years,” Mr Hyslop told the energy and environment committee. “If we had not done anything seven years ago and today we then did all those things, we could have … two to three times as much solar (energy generation) in roofs for the same amount of investment over that period.
“If you think that the cost of renewables and low-emissions technology is falling rapidly, absolutely put it off for as long as possible.”
The Victorian government last week announced a 25 per cent RET by 2025, following South Australia’s 50 per cent target by 2025 and a 100 per cent target in the ACT.
Economist Geoffrey Carmody, a founder of Deloitte Access Economics, suggested solving the “trilemma” of low-emissions, reliable and low-cost energy should include nuclear power. The South Australian royal commission into nuclear power put the cost of a large-scale nuclear reactor at $9.3bn.
“If we sweep nuclear energy off the table in favour of renewables, achieving these three conflicting objectives with one instrument — renewable energy — is numerical nonsense,” Mr Carmody said.
Australia is the only G20 country to have banned nuclear power.
Mr Broad suggested yesterday that to provide investment certainty, the government could consider setting a higher emissions intensity threshold of 0.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour as part of any clean-energy target for some projects — the terms of which could be reviewed after a set period of eight to 10 years.
“I think we’ve got to do something to create certainty in the market,” Mr Broad said.
He said a lower threshold of 0.6 tonnes — the scenario modelled by chief scientist Alan Finkel in his review into the national electricity market — would not cover a new coal-fired power station, although Dr Finkel has said the difference between the two thresholds would “not be substantial”.
The construction of a new 1000MW high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power station has been estimated at $2.2bn according to an analysis compiled by power and energy specialists GHD and Solstice Development Services.
It found such a plant would deliver the cheapest electricity on the market.
Malcolm Turnbull this week opened the door to using finance from a $5bn federal infrastructure fund to help build a coal-fired power station.
Mr Kelly said yesterday a decision on a new plant needed to be made urgently because the 45-year-old Liddell coal-fired power station near Muswellbrook, NSW, was scheduled for closure in 2022 and it would take at least five years to build a new plant. He said it made sense for any new coal-fired power plant to be built in NSW instead of Queensland.
Queensland LNP leader Tim Nicholls is pledging to fast-track a project using the latest high-energy low-emissions technology to be built and run by the private sector.
“We basically need a decision on that by early next year,” Mr Kelly said. “A HELE plant would favourable.”
Former Labor Party minister, Graham Richardson, on the money:
Every sector in our economy is struggling to cope with [electricity] prices that have almost doubled during the past five years … For the past few years many pensioners have sacrificed heat in winter and airconditioning in summer. Now low to middle-income families are frantically trying to reduce their power bills as well.
While all of this is happening, our Prime Minister sits down with the chiefs of the electricity companies to ask them to be nice to their clients and offer them the cheapest possible options. The problem is that in a free-market capitalist economy, private business is supposed to maximise profits for shareholders. I, for one, will not hang by the neck waiting for my friendly electricity retailer to offer me a way of paying them less. Surely Malcolm Turnbull has got something better to do to fill in his diary.
What a colossal waste – and to think that simply building the reactors would have given us more reliable power, too: “Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, … enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.“
Billions and billions more of taxpayers hard-earned money wasted on fake fixes to a fake catastrophe.
- GREEN ENERGY FAIL – World Coal Power Development Up 43% | Climatism
- IT’S OFFICIAL : South Australia Has The World’s Highest Power Prices! | Climatism
- POLITICIANS Mad With Global Warming Theory Are Destroying The Economy And Hurting The Poor | Climatism
- DIESEL – Keeping South Australia’s Lights On Til The Next Election! | Climatism
- LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia | Climatism
- THE Twisted Irony of Deep-Green Energy Policy (RET) | Climatism
The sooner the better. Then UK hospitals won’t have to “turn off their lights and air-conditioners and turn on their emergency diesel generators to pump power back into the grid, every time British breezes turn to zephyrs.”
A true, “you can’t make this stuff up” story! …
Small modular reactor [credit: ANS Nuclear Cafe]
With enough government backing SMRs could be a competitive alternative to unreliable renewables in the long term. PoliticsHome reporting.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) could be operating in the UK by 2030 and the Government has a crucial role to play in encouraging early investor confidence, according to a new report by the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI).
View original post 319 more words