Posted by: Grant | September 2, 2014

Wind & Solar Data USA Germany & UK

 insaneThe USA and Germany each installed 70,000 Megawatts of “Renewables”.
The USA struggles to use the not-quite 20,000 Megawatts actually generated.
Germany struggles to use the not-quite 10,000 Megawatts actually generated.

WUWT
Renewable Energy in perspective: Solar and Wind power
Guest Blogger / 2 days ago August 30, 2014 
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins | Data for the USA, Germany and the UK since the year 2000 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/30/renewable-energy-in-perspective-solar-and-wind-power/

…Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as for example in a week in July this year shown above. Similarly an established high pressure zone with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, that is when electricity demand is likely to be at its highest.

Conversely on occasions renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used here in relation to the measured outputs from renewable energy sources.

Overall the renewable energy output from these three major nations that have committed to massive investments in Renewable Energy amounts to a nominal ~31Gigawatts out of a total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts or only ~5.5%.

But even that amount of energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.”

Posted by: Grant | August 29, 2014

Review Of Aussie RET Fails Us.

~meI am bitterly disappointed in the Warburton Review into the Renewable Energy Target - https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/executive-summary

It completely misses the point.

It states“The direct costs of the RET currently increase retail electricity bills for households by around four per cent, but modelling suggests that the net impact of the RET over time is relatively small. The impact on emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses and other industries is significantly greater. The RET does not generate an increase in wealth in the economy, but leads to a transfer of wealth among participants in the electricity market.”

The direct costs of the RET are NOT the problem.

The problem is – renewables are not an alternative – They cannot provide base load power. They cannot match the demand for electricity.

The INDIRECT costs of the RET are the killers

ONE – they destroy the efficacy and efficiency of base load power stations, by forcing them  onto standby for long periods of time.

TWO – They do not permit any beneficial, corresponding, reduction in fossil fuel power generation capacity. Full base load capacity must be maintained in readiness at all times.

THREE – A few large base load power stations can supply a large city down a few simple corridors. Renewable energy is widely dispersed and needs a large, expensive, infrastructure to be integrated into that monolithic system.

 PowerBill whyIt is the RET, not the carbon tax that doubled our power bills.

A modern coal-fired power station is an engineering masterpiece.
It converts a huge percentage of the energy from its fuel into electricity, collects all the pollution, and feeds power down a single corridor to easily and effectively match the demand – the demand when the city leaves work, goes home and cooks dinner, goes to bed, gets up in the morning, showers eats and leaves for work and school. Sometimes the weather plays a role but not to any great extent.

The renewable energy fed into this cheap, well run system does nothing but disrupt it.

The 20% mandatory RET does NOT replace 20% of our electricity supply with Green energy. On a good day renewables force-feed extremely expensive, intermittent, widely dispersed, power into a highly efficient, cheap, generating system which staggers to an idle until it is required to suddenly crank up again to meet the demand when the wind dies or clouds drift over.

The 20% mandatory RET would only very rarely meet 20% of the demand while constantly disrupting the highly efficient operation of the base load power supply at huge cost to the consumer.

More on the disappointing Warburton Review here -
THE AUSTRALIAN
RET Review delivers blow to clean energy industry
John Conroy |
August 28, 2014 5:00PM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/ret-review-delivers-blow-to-clean-energy-industry/story-e6frg90f-1227040332298

I have not studied all this report, the summary discredits it, but the appointment of a climate sceptic to head it was a clear signal to the wind power rorters and they will not be surprised that the gravy train is over.
A clever way is to make the RET a non-mandatory, aspirational target which will achieve the government’s aim of reducing our power bills significantly since the removal of the Carbon Tax will not. The issue, however, has been largely dropped. The public don’t care.

Posted by: Grant | August 23, 2014

The Good News And The Bad News

The good news – The UNIPCC were wrong, “natural forcings” are not so weak and so long term that they can be disregarded, they ARE able to easily neutralise “global warming” – no cause for alarm – Climate Change is NOT “here and now” – we do NOT have to act urgently to “save-da-planet”.

The bad News – We wasted billions and billions of dollars and created huge new failed industries and doubled our power bills – FER NUTHIN’!
We could have just waited to see if it was really so bad after all.

bbc
BBC News – Global warming slowdown ‘could last another decade’
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

Posted by: Grant | August 23, 2014

UNIPCC Models’ Assumption Proven Flawed.

Carbon dioxide is a trivial GHG and its effect is almost saturated. Adding more and more has less and less effect. The Global Warming alarm is based on an assumption made in ALL UNIPCC computer models.

Measurements now prove that assumption is wrong and we can thus conclude that human fossil fuel burning is no cause for alarm.

forbes

 

 

FORBES MAGAZINE
Opinion 8/20/2014 @ 7:16AM 2,807 views
Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models
James Taylor Contributor
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/

” …The most important of these assumptions is that a little bit of carbon dioxide-induced warming will create a substantial increase in atmospheric water vapor. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so substantial increases in atmospheric water vapor can certainly cause significant warming. United Nations computer models are programmed to assume that absolute humidity (the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere) will rise so much that even relative humidity (the percent of water vapor in the atmosphere) will at least keep pace and perhaps even increase. Warmer air is able to hold more water than cooler air, so absolute water vapor would have to increase quite substantially for relative humidity to remain constant or increase in a warming world.

Scientists, however, have been measuring relative humidity for many decades. Rather than keeping pace with modestly warming temperatures, relative humidity is declining…. “

 http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/NVAP_March2013.pdf

Posted by: Grant | August 13, 2014

Climate Relegated In AUSMIN Communiqué

untitled

Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, Minister for Defence Senator David Johnston, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met on 12 August in Sydney for the annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

Climate change only got two lines in the – 
AUSMIN 2014 Joint Communiqué
12 August 2014 https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/us/ausmin/ausmin14-joint-communique.html
Look down the bottom under “3.Global Challenges

“Recognising the challenges climate change poses to security, Australia and the United States intend to continue to work through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process to negotiate a new, ambitious climate agreement applicable to all countries by 2015 to take effect in 2020.”

There is also a hint of it there (“3.Global Challenges“) with “G20” and the clichés “sustainable” and “energy efficiency

“Australia and the United States plan to work together through the G20 toward achieving their shared goals of promoting strong, sustainable, and balanced global economic growth and employment, and increasing the resilience of the global economy, including by strengthening infrastructure investment, enhancing trade and building cooperation on energy, including on energy efficiency. The United States shared Australia’s ambition for G20 members to boost the collective GDP of members by more than two per cent above current projections over the next five years.”

The stark differences in attitudes on Climate Change were not mentioned – “don’t mention the war” – Basil Fawlty.

The US administration has been forced into a very soft sell, not only by India and the developing nations but by the host, Australia.

The US has been forced into the “whole world must agree on ambitious targets or it is a wasted effort” position.

Obviously a lot of people are having a lot of trouble “recognising the challenges climate change poses to security”!

china

Posted by: Grant | August 12, 2014

The Inconvenient Science

“All scientists agree” and “the science is settled” carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas – yes -

BUT -

All scientists also agree and the science is also settled that carbon dioxide itself actually has an inverse logarithmic effect. The more you add the less warming you get from it.

Well, you say, why are they worried?

Simple, they are worried because they want to be worried, they claim that the small rise in global temperature caused by carbon dioxide will cause an increase in global humidity, water vapour, the Earth’s real GHG. They make that assumption in all their alarming computer models.

However, the assumption that perturbations in the earth’s temperature cause instability due to an increase in water vapour are not supported by definitive evidence. We cannot predict global temperature, but the global temperature is remarkably stable and self-regulating.
The well referenced article below goes into the science and points out -

” …The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv…. “

~scienceSmallWUWT
The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature
Posted on August 10, 2014 by Anthony Watts  
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/#more-114325

All scientists do agree that adding carbon dioxide does NOT produce a linear rise in temperature.
All scientists do NOT agree that raising the Earth’s temperature by a small amount will be amplified by an increase in the Earth’s GHG – water vapour – that is highly contentious.

Posted by: Grant | August 11, 2014

The Betrayal Of USA Working Poor

As I assert inNEW WORLD ORDER on the sidebar of this blog, the socialist revolutionaries and associated NGOs at the UN were trying to set up mechanisms for World “Governance” to save-da-planet and destroy capitalism.

They aimed to destroy western civilisation by destroying the cheap, intrinsic, electrical power generation system built up over generations.

They attacked the only demonstrated viable fossil fuel alternatives, nuclear and hydro and advocated “Renewables” which could not deliver base load power until someone invented magical solutions.

The masses, after all, are not going to revolt against their evil capitalistic masters while they have cheap electrical power in their homes and workplaces and cheap fuel for their transport systems.

Australian and European “battlers”, dismayed at the lack of a solution to an as yet imaginary problem, will empathise with the Californians in this article on how the prosperous “Left” or “liberals” have betrayed them.

The penny has dropped – environmentalism is fundamentally misanthropic or anti-human and the poor are the ones who suffer to save-da-planet.

Capture-1 http://www.ocregister.com/articles/class-629268-people-democratic.html

Also here -

Newgeography.com

by Joel Kotkin 08/04/2014

Democrats Risk Blue-collar Rebellion http://www.newgeography.com/content/004455-democrats-risk-blue-collar-rebellion

” …But, at least here in California, much of the working class is made up of minorities, who are increasingly the economic victims of the enlightened ones. One place to see this is in Richmond in Northern California, where a Green Party mayor and a similarly aligned planning department have tried to block the refurbishing of Chevron’s large refinery there, which is also the economic bulwark of the area.

The dispute over the refinery suggests divisions that may become more commonplace. Essentially, you have on one side overwhelmingly white, often very-affluent greens, allied with powerful Democratic politicians, arrayed to obstruct the refinery. On the other side, you have minorities, many of them union members, whose livelihoods and high-paying jobs depend on the refinery.

The incipient rift between such blue-collar workers and gentry Democrats is inevitable. The wealthy donors who dominate both local and national Democratic politics, like San Francisco hedge fund mogul Tom Steyer, may have made much of their fortunes in fossil fuels, as the New York Times, among others, have reported. But now, having embraced a stringent environmentalism, the gentry seek to impose their “green” agenda on the hoi polloi… “

Posted by: Grant | August 7, 2014

The latest Global Temperature

~meHere is a perspective of the latest global temperature.

Global temperature has been accurately measured by satellites since 1979 and this graph from the US Government CDIAC shows the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions during that period (after the red line)

cumulative_global_1751_2007 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/cumulative_global_1751_2007.jpg

This is a rare graph of the actual global temperature during that period. It is rare because the global temperature is seen as a virtually flat, straight line.

guide_2505022c http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html

That virtually flat line can be plotted as a “temperature anomaly” graph which exaggerates the tiny variations (less than half a degree) in global temperature so we can see how much they vary from the average.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2014_v5 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/05/uah-july-global-temperature-essentially-unchanged-from-june/#more-114131

The blue graph above is NOT a measure of global temperature – it is a measure of how it varies.  The trend before and since a spike in 1998 is essentially flat. The global temperature is remarkably stable and self regulating.

Despite an almost exponential rise in human carbon dioxide burning we see only trivial rises in global temperature during the above satellite record and virtually no change for over ten years now. Waiting, waiting, waiting….

Posted by: Grant | August 6, 2014

Japan Solar Abandoned

snow The Japanese powers-that-be discover that their small island, at a quite high latitude, crowded with 130 million people cannot even find the room to install solar panels and they do not provide base load power and are therefore no alternative to the 48 shut down nuclear power stations – DURH!!!

REUTERS
Future grows darker for solar energy growth in Japan
By James Topham and Aaron Sheldrick
TOKYO Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:32pm BST http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-japan-solar-idUKKBN0FY2AZ20140729

Greenies should be smiled at indulgently, patted on the head, solemnly agreed with but NEVER taken seriously.

Posted by: Grant | August 4, 2014

The Billion Dollar Green Propaganda Industry Exposed

 

T~mehis excellent Forbes article reveals the evil multinationals manipulating the huge Leftist “Climate Change” industry.

Not so much of a problem if it wasn’t so potentially destructive in that it is aimed at destroying a vital, intrinsic, energy system (including nuclear and hydro) for which there is no demonstrated viable alternative.

forbes
FORBES

Chris Prandoni
BREAKING: Senate Committee Report Details Environmentalists’ Inner Workings
Opinion 7/30/2014 @ 11:19AM 3,310 views http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisprandoni/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-committee-report-details-environmentalists-inner-workings/

” …according to a new report out today by the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).

The EPW report titled The Chain of Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA meticulously details how the “Billionaires’ Club” funds nearly all of the major environmental non-government organizations (NGO), many media outlets, and supposed grassroots activists. The Billionaire Report continues by describing the cozy relationship many environmental groups have with the executive branch and the revolving door that makes this possible.

The most striking aspect of the Billionaire Report is the sheer amount of money that is in play. In 2011 alone, ten foundations donated upwards of half a billion dollars to environmental causes…. “

Read the original here – it is a Republican document but it contains vast, exquisite, detail that can only be produced by the huge recourses of the US public service -

EPW http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=53280dcb-9f2c-2e3a-7092-10cf6d8d08df

Key points from the report:

• The “Billionaire’s Club,” an exclusive group of wealthy individuals, directs the far-left environmental movement. The members of this elite liberal club funnel their fortunes through private foundations to execute their personal political agenda, which is centered around restricting the use of fossil fuels in the United States.

• Public charities attempt to provide the maximum amount of control to their donors through fiscal sponsorships, which are a legally suspect innovation unique to the left, whereby the charity essentially sells its nonprofit status to a group for a fee.

• Public charity activist groups discussed in this report propagate the false notion that they are independent, citizen-funded groups working altruistically. In reality, they work in tandem with wealthy donors to maximize the value of the donors’ tax deductible donations and leverage their combined resources to influence elections and policy outcomes, with a focus on the EPA.

• Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is a place where wealthy donors meet and coordinate the distribution of grants to advance the environmental movement. It is a secretive organization, refusing to disclose their membership list to Congress.

• The Obama Administration has installed an audacious green-revolving door among senior officials at EPA, which has become a valuable asset for the environmental movement and its wealthy donors.

• Former environmentalists working at EPA funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues.

• Under President Obama, EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer-funded grants to major environmental groups. Notably, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund – two key activists groups with significant ties to senior EPA officials – have collected more than $1 million in funding each.

• EPA also gives grants to lesser-known groups. For example, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade received hundreds of thousands of grants under former Administrator Lisa Jackson despite challenges by state regulators over the use of such grants.

• In New York and Colorado, a pseudo grassroots effort to attack hydraulic fracturing has germinated from massive amounts of funding by the NY-based Park Foundation, as well as CA-based Schmidt Family Foundation and Tides Foundation.

• Bold Nebraska is another example of faux grassroots where a purportedly local organization is, in fact, an arm of the Billionaire’s Club. It is a shield for wealthy and distant non-Nebraskan interests who seek to advance a political agenda without drawing attention to the fact that they have little connection to the state.

• The circumstances surrounding the flow of money from 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups, and the likelihood of lax oversight, raises questions as to whether 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundations and charities are indirectly funding political activities.

• 501(c)(4) Green Tech Action Fund receives millions of dollars from green 501(c)(3) organizations, then distributes the funds to other 501(c)(4) groups that donate to political campaigns.

• The Billionaire’s Club knowingly collaborates with questionable offshore funders to maximize support for the far-left environmental movement

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8af3d005-1337-4bc3-bcd6-be947c523439

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 146 other followers