GLOBAL WARMING Might Not Hurt, But Warming Policies Do : Former Australian PM Spells Out The Inconvenient TruthPosted: July 4, 2018
“WE were the cheapest electricity market in the world, and now we’re one of the dearest. It’s insanity that this has occurred in a market that is so well-blessed in resources.”
― Alan John Moran (Australian columnist and Economist)
THE climate change scare has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Lefts social agendas.
CO2 – the byproduct of cheap, reliable and affordable energy – was fingered as the patsy and subsequently demonised, with “the science” tortured to fit the warming theory. Not the other way around as the “scientific method” would require.
THE UN IPCC was created as the all-holy authority on climate change “science” by Maurice Strong’s UNEP and the UN’s WMO, with its charter carefully crafted to only study human (Anthropogenic) effects on climate – “Don’t worry about natural causes – your gasses and lifestyles are far more dangerous than anything Mother Nature can deal out…trust us”.
THUS, the science was “settled” and “consensus” demanded before the data was even in. It has been the same ever since. The hypothesis has not changed a jot even as the evidence proving CAGW has failed dismally across most metrics. Instead, the theory has become more “settled”, according to the UN IPCC, with the scare driven relentlessly by the mainstream media and throng of well funded global green lobby groups and unreliable-energy rent-seekers who all profit from climate doom.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
THE fix was in from the start, and now we’re paying for it, big time, in the form of skyrocketing power bills, energy poverty and even an uptick in cold-related deaths as the elderly and poor are forced to switch off their heating in the face of costly ‘green’ energy
schemes scams imposed on them by draconian government ‘climate’ regulations…
FORMER Australian PM, Tony Abbott, has had enough. His essay featured in today’s Australian is a plea from the people and its economy, paralysed by skyrocketing power bills, to pull out of the job and life-destroying UN Paris climate accord…
(ABBOT’s essay is paywalled, so I’ll pull out the juicy bits, with Climatism supports added.) Read the rest of this entry »
WESTERN climate-theory-obsessed governments continue to ramp up unreliables – wind and solar – that continue to fail dismally wherever they are installed. Energy poverty, sky rocketing power bills, grid instability and the destruction of pristine landscapes, flora and fauna among the many costs of low energy-density, weather dependent novelty ‘energy’ sources!
EITHER, green propaganda is beyond successful or lucrative kickbacks for politicians who give the ‘green’ light are too good to refuse. A combination of both seems likely.
ECO-insanity on stilts.
Ringhals nuclear power site, Sweden [image credit: Vattenfall]
Another example of the obvious inadequacy of part-time unpredictable wind power, and its consequencies for countries that insist on pursuing it. Relying on imports to avoid power shortages can’t be ideal for any country.
H/T The GWPF/Reuters
Sweden will have to import more electricity during winter as the country, a net power exporter to the rest of Europe, shifts from nuclear to wind, its grid operator said.
View original post 200 more words
Britain’s gone nine days with almost no wind generation, and forecasts show the calm conditions persisting for another two weeks.
The wind drought has pushed up day-ahead power prices to the highest level for the time of year for at least a decade. Apart from a surge expected around June 14, wind levels are forecast to stay low for the next fortnight, according to The Weather Company.
“People would’ve started worrying about brownouts,” Elchin Mammadov, analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence said. “This shows that relying on wind, solar and batteries to supply the majority of our power is reckless for energy security.”
On Wednesday, wind generated about 4.3 percent of the U.K.’s electricity. Coal output has dropped near zero. Gas and nuclear have picked up the slack with 54 percent and 25 percent respectively, according to data from National Grid Plc.
The weather can be fickle and the government has to make sure that there is enough back up generation for times when the wind isn’t blowing. Greg Clark, secretary of state for business energy and industrial strategy announced Monday that the U.K. will take the next step toward agreeing to help Hitachi Ltd. finance a new nuclear reactor.
THE wind blowing everywhere but the UK! LOL…
UNRLIABLES – insanity on stilts.
UPDATE – Energy Poverty Australia
DEVASTATING read exposing the blatant fraud and utter uselessness of weather AND fossil-fuel dependent wind ‘power’….
* There has been zero scientific empirical proof provided by the wind industry to support their claims of consequential CO2 reduction.
* The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all. Consider just one part of a turbine, the generator, which uses considerable rare earth elements (2000± pounds per MW).
* The mining and processing of these metals has horrific environmental consequences that are unacknowledged and ignored by the wind industry and its environmental surrogates. For instance, just the rare earths of a typical 100 MW wind project would generate approximately:
1. 20,000 square meters of destroyed vegetation,
2. 2 million pounds of CO2,
3. 6 million cubic meters of toxic air pollution,
4. 29 million gallons of poisoned water,
5. 600 million pounds of highly contaminated tailing sands, and
6. 280,000 pounds of radioactive waste. (See this, and this, and this.)
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that wind power is the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. All it takes is a little cognitive power and a sense of inquiry.
Once people work out that they’ve been conned, they never turn back.
In our travels we’ve met plenty who’ve started out in favour of wind power and turned against it; we’ve never found an example of the reverse.
STT dishes up the facts on a daily basis, much to the annoyance of the wind cult. Anyone looking for a solid set of reasons as to why wind power can never work, need look no further than this cracking little list put together by John Droz.
Twenty-One Bad Things About Wind Energy — and Three Reasons Why
22 March 2018
Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like…
View original post 3,317 more words
UNRELIABLES Rip-Off: Despite $4 Billion in Annual Subsidies, Wind & Solar Delivers a Trivial 2% of Australia’s Power DemandPosted: April 30, 2018
“Ex-Nationals senator Ron Boswell wrote in “The Australian” today, (19 April 2018), making the point that the RET is failing us and forcing electricity prices through the roof, putting ordinary folk in energy poverty and destroying businesses.
Total renewable MWh for the period and the associated subsidies are:
• Wind: 74,100,000 at $80/MWh = $5.93 billion.
• Hydro: 245,800,000 at $80/MWh = $19.7 billion
• Large PV: 614,000 at $40/MWh = $24.5 million.
• Small PV: 25,300,000 at $40/MWh = $1 billion.
The total extra cost to consumers is about $27 billion for 9% of the total consumption.”
BASED solely on output and reliability, without massive subsidies and government intervention, there would be no unreliable-energy ‘revolution’ to pad the egos of the climate-theory-obsessed, virtue-signalling politicians.
PRIVATE investors will not go near large-scale wind and solar. The German’s are learning this, hard and fast, right now >> http://joannenova.com.au/2018/04/bloodbath-in-the-german-solar-industry-without-subsidies-80000-solar-jobs-are-gone/
EXPECT more ‘green’ energy meltdowns as the subsidy crutch dries up.
In any bargain, those stumping up their own cash, tend to ask what they’re getting in return. When it comes to the billions in subsidies thrown at windmills and solar panels, the answer is: not much.
Including domestic, rooftop solar annual subsidies to wind and solar add up to a staggering $4 billion. The cost of which is added directly to retail power bills. The greatest government mandated rort in the history of the Commonwealth, started in 2001 and runs until 2031.
Now, the value minded might forgive the scale and duration of that forced ‘largesse’, if there were a commensurate increase in the output said to be drawn from nature’s wonder fuels, sunshine and breezes. Except, as David Bidstrip points out, the combined contribution of wind and solar generation to Australia’s energy demand remains risible, and little more than a rounding error.
Money for nothing
View original post 834 more words
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”
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.
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. Read the rest of this entry »
#UNRELIABLES Report Card : Actual Electricity Generated From Wind Farms Falls Well Short Of Claimed OutputPosted: April 18, 2018
“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
THE question of efficiency is critical to any informed discussion of wind energy. Wind turbines produce less energy than their “maximum capacity” rating would have us believe. Due to the fluctuation of wind currents—not exactly a novel discovery—turbines actually produce around 26.9 percent of the energy they could in theory generate. This is known as their “capacity factor.” By contrast, conventional power plants tend to have a capacity factor of 40 to 80 percent. This has one obvious ramification: Wind farms are less efficient and cost-effective than non-renewable sources of energy.
ALTHOUGH this conclusion is hardly shocking, the unpredictability of wind power presents a much more serious problem. Because wind power can never be completely reliable, we will always need other, more reliable forms of energy to serve as a backup for “wind reliant” buildings and infrastructure. (Wind Farms: Not So Green | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson)