CLIMATE change bedwetters love to trash Donald Trump for pulling out of the failed Paris Climate Treaty designed to lower CO2 emissions that are apparently causing dangerous
global warming climate change.
HE has been labeled a “planet killer” amongst a plethora of standard smear and slime attacks aimed at anyone who dares question the veracity and motives of the $1.5TRILLION Climate Industrial Complex.
WHERE Trump is 100% correct and the climate bedwetters 100% wrong is that US emissions have been falling, largely thanks to the shale gas boom.
THE graph climate alarmists and unreliable-energy rent seekers don’t want you to see:
WHY on earth would Trump sign up to an economy and job-destroying Paris ‘deal’, when the two biggest ‘polluters’ on the planet – China and India – get a free pass to burn unlimited emissions until 2030?!
AND, why would Trump sign up to the latest UN wealth redistribution scam when Europe, the epicentre of punitive climate change policy and green energy madness, fail to meet their own emissions ‘commitments’ despite spending trillions of €uros of other peoples’ money on failed ‘green’ energy?
EUROPE’S GREEN FAILURE: CO2 EMISSIONS RISING
BUT, AREN’T WIND AND SOLAR ‘POWER’ MEANT TO LOWER EMISSIONS?
URELIABLE-energy propagandists claim that wind, solar and other weather-dependent ‘energy’ sources will “Save The Planet” by lowering plant-food (CO2) emissions. But, the opposite is, in fact, occurring…
ONE inconvenient reason for the rise in emissions, that you won’t hear reported on MSM news, ever, is because…
“Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built”
CLIMATE bedwetters need to take a deep, hard look at themselves through the epicentre of green central planning and draconian climate change policy overreach – Europe – where despite spending literally trillions of €uros, of other peoples’ money, on unreliable-energy – wind and solar – emissions have been rising, not falling! Read the rest of this entry »
“In all, subsidies for wind power and standby will be costing the country more than £7bn a year, equivalent to about £270 per household.”
SKYROCKETING power bills, energy poverty and the decimation of pristine landscapes, all to feed the egos of climate theory obsessed politicians and line the pockets of rent-seeking, subsidy-sucking mega-green corporations.
CO2 reductions for all this pain? ZERO, actually increased emissions as more fossil-fuel energy sources are needed to cover for the times when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine! 🤦♂️
STUDIES: Wind Power Installation Amplifies The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies https://shar.es/anXezw
It takes a ‘special’ kind of person to still believe that a country can run itself on sunshine and breezes.
Idolatry, zealotry, and good old-fashioned pig ignorance are worn like badges of honour amongst the wind and sun cult.
Claims range from the ‘wind is always blowing somewhere’, ‘wind power is cheaper than coal’, and ‘competitive’ with everything under the sun blah, blah, blah.
Another mantra is that, either wind power receives no subsidies at all or, if that’s grudgingly conceded, then the subsidies to wondrous wind dwarf those shoveled out to evil fossil fuels. (On the latter they struggle to come up with a shred of evidence to support their case, and ignore the fact that coal miners and gas extractors and pay very substantial sums in royalties to governments.)
True it is that the manner in which subsidies are filched from unwitting power consumers and siphoned off to…
View original post 595 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 »
INFORMATIVE piece written not by a climate change “denier” but by energy and environment expert Michael Shellenberger – a democrat and climate change activist, no less.
ALWAYS refreshing reading Shellenberger’s work and commentary on twitter. Like Bjorn Lomborg, the other well-known ‘warmist’, they both provide reasoned analysis of environmental issues, focusing on costs and outcomes of climate and energy policy, rather than blind ideology so common in mainstream media environmental reporting that only poisons and polarises the debate leading to unnecessary alarmism resulting in overarching climate policy and misguided allocation of public money.
This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn’t because they don’t know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don’t want to.
That could — and should — change. Reporters have an obligation to report accurately and fairly on all issues they cover, especially ones as important as energy and the environment.
A good start would be for them to investigate why, if solar and wind are so cheap, they are making electricity so expensive.
Read on here…
If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
“Those fantasists claiming that we’re heartbeat away from running entirely on sunshine and breezes, need to keep up the line about giant batteries being the simple solution to a glaring problem. Except, that they will never put a number on what their purportedly quick and simple fix might cost. And that’s because the number is in the many $trillions, as detailed by Francis Menton below.”
AND on the third day BILLIONS became TRILLIONS! Taxpayers hard-earned money sacrificed at the alter of “climate change” all to try to create some kind of perfect climate nirvana.
It took the proletariat a nanosecond to work out that wind power can, and will never, work as a meaningful power generation source.
Graphs like the one above – depicting the entire output of every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid (spread across four states, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia) – quickly gave the game away.
Challenged with the inherent unreliability and obvious intermittency of wind power, those pushing it have been reduced to chanting mantras about mega-batteries saving the day.
The way they tell it, it’s as if they simply left grid-scale battery storage off their shopping lists – like some muddle-headed shopper returning home without milk and bread – and all they needed to do was pop back to the shops to collect some.
The world’s largest battery cuts a lonely figure in a paddock…
View original post 1,154 more words
#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)