In Spite of Propaganda, Bribes, and Outright Lies, Wind’s Favourability is dying!

Commentary by Mark Whitworth, Executive Director of 

Energize Vermont.

Big Wind has a big public relations problem. A new WCAX poll shows public support for wind plummeting from 66 percent in 2013 to 50 percent now.

Wind developers may search for clues about this reversal of fortune in a UVM honors undergraduate thesis written by Neil Brandt. Mr. Brandt says that media coverage of ridgeline wind in Vermont dropped in favorability from 47 percent in 2003 to a measly 26 percent in 2012.

One of Gov. Shumlin’s aides didn’t need a university study to see this: “We are losing the water cooler debate about wind.” This may be why the governor’s talk of renewable energy now emphasizes solar, not wind.

(Of course, if Mr. Brandt were to conduct a similar study of solar, he’d find that poor siting choices are creating a backlash against solar that’s reflected in the state’s media. How long before that shows up in statewide polls?)

In carrying out his ridgeline wind study, Brandt collected 10 years’ worth of relevant news stories from the Caledonian Record, Burlington Free Press and the Associated Press’ Vermont bureau. He broke each of the stories down into individual statements and classified each statement in a variety of ways: who made the statement, what issue it addressed, and did it support or oppose wind.

He identified trends in Big Wind’s media messaging as well as trends in public attitudes.

For example, between 2003 and 2012, Big Wind stopped emphasizing energy independence. The argument must not have been working. Were Vermonters skeptical of the claim that small amounts of electricity produced at random times would make them independent? Was it David Blittersdorf’s pronouncement that he needed 200 miles of ridgeline wind in Vermont?

Brandt says that local economic gain was once the dominant pro-wind theme. Not anymore. Now we know that the wind jobs were temporary. And the good ones went to out-of-state specialists. Heck, even the driver that tipped over his tractor-trailer on his way to Lowell was a specialist from Texas. Any of my neighbors could have driven that truck off the road. I would have been proud to do it myself.

Brandt analyzed coverage of aesthetics. For years, Big Wind has tried to ridicule opponents by calling them NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) who selfishly imperil the planet in order to preserve scenery. Brandt dismisses the NIMBY characterization: “…local opposition to renewable energy development is multi-faceted and based on more than a knee-jerk NIMBY reaction.” Brandt says that aesthetics arguments were prevalent in 2003, but in 2012, only 12 percent of anti-wind statements related to aesthetics.

While aesthetics arguments were falling, human health arguments were rising. By 2012, 33 percent of anti-wind statements involved human health impacts. Interestingly, he found no statements about health impacts from state government. This is not surprising—both the governor and the Department of Health have been missing in action on wind’s health impacts. The department has met with neither turbine neighbors nor the doctors who treat them. But, that hasn’t deterred the department from announcing that negative health impacts result from bad attitudes and are thus the fault of the sufferers themselves.

Big Wind knows that their turbines create ill health because the U.S. Department of Energy told them so. A study conducted for the DoE from 1979 to 1985 investigated complaints of families living near a single 200-foot tall wind turbine. (Picture this pathetic little turbine amidst Lowell’s 459-footers.) The cause of the complaints was found to be infrasound.

Vermont turbines are not monitored for infrasound; only audible noise is monitored. And it’s not monitored continuously. Turbine operators can choose who does the monitoring; they only hire firms that will swear everything is ok. In Vermont, this is easy because the standards are so lax.

Big Wind uses audible noise as a red herring to divert attention away from infrasound. They compare turbine noise to rustling leaves. But neighbors describe turbine effects that cut right through rustling leaves — concussive, more felt than heard. That’s how it is with infrasound.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch. It’s used in conjunction with a technique called “the fallacy of the excluded middle” – the oldest advertising gimmick in the book: Chew Clorets and have lots of fabulous lovers. Don’t chew Clorets and watch Gilligan’s Island — alone.

It’s the same technique that Texas Gov. Rick Perry uses to talk about immigration, terrorism, and Ebola.

Here’s how it goes: If we don’t convert our ridgelines into wind power plants, we’re going to get wiped out by another tropical storm Irene.

Whoa. This proposition excludes more than the middle:

1. We cannot reverse climate change just by reducing our carbon emissions.

2. Climate change or not, next big storm will come; industrializing our ridgelines will only worsen storm damage.

3. Healthy ridgelines are crucial for enabling climate adaptation and survival for a wide range of species. Our best response to climate change is to preserve essential wildlife habitat.

4. If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we should first focus our limited resources on weatherization: bigger payoff, less cost, no environmental destruction, no disasters. No big money for Big Wind.

Do industrial wind turbines reduce carbon emissions? Can they even erase their own carbon footprints? During the last legislative session, one Senate committee entertained a bill that would have required developers to account for carbon emissions over the life of a wind project—from manufacture to decommissioning. Vermont’s leading faux-environmental group opposed the bill, calling it “anti-renewable.” I guess it wouldn’t serve the public interest to question industry propaganda.

Big Wind probably won’t just pack its bags and leave—there’s too much money to be made off Vermonters. The energy independence and economic growth arguments haven’t worked, so Big Wind will make its last stand in Vermont by turning up the heat on climate change.

Be on the lookout for the excluded middle — that’s where Big Wind hides its inconvenient truths.

Climate Alarmists are Looking Rather Foolish, as the Earth Cools Down……

Global warming scare declared over

Source: WND  agw-earth

‘Past time to stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat’

Scientists and others on a team assembled by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which focuses on free-market solutions to today’s problems, say the “scare” of global warming from the use of carbon fuels and other human activities “is over.”

It’s “past time” for the world to realize that and “stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat,” contends Kenneth Haapala, the executive vice president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project at the Heartland Institute.

Institute experts said Thursday the Remote Sensing Systems, which provide data to NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation, have confirmed “the global mean surface temperature has not risen for 18 consecutive years.”

“This extends the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming to a new record, one not predicted by the climate models of the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change,” the organization said.

Craig Idso, senior fellow in environment for the Heartland Institute and co-editor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a counterpart to the IPCC, said that to “the world’s climate alarmists, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a dangerous trace gas, and for years, they have been insisting its increase will raise global temperatures and wreak havoc upon Earth’s climate and biosphere.”

“Yet, despite a 9 percent increase in CO2 over the past 18 years, there has been no rise in global temperature,” he said.

“Think about that. Over this time period the air’s CO2 content has risen some 40 parts per million, which represents fully one-third the total global CO2 increase since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, yet contrary to model projections, planetary temperatures have failed to rise,” Idso said.

Idso said it’s “time for global warming diehards to face the facts.”

“Stop denying the models have got global temperature projections wrong. Stop denying CO2 has a lower climate sensitivity than you have been claiming. Stop denying the societal benefits of continued fossil fuel use. It’s not too late to make a course correction and support sound science,” he said.

James Taylor, the institute’s senior fellow for environmental policy, said, based on the latest results in the climate studies, that the “ongoing 18 years without any warming strongly contradict alarmist predictions of global warming doom-and-gloom.”

“According to nearly all of the United Nations’ computer models, this lack of warming could not occur,” he noted. “The real-world climate proves the alarmist computer models overstate the warming properties of carbon dioxide. Even when Earth resumes its modest warming, which it likely will at some point in the next couple of decades, the pace of warming will continue to be quite modest and beneficial to human welfare and global ecosystems.”

Haapala dinged the federal EPA over the issue.

“The EPA claimed that carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants that endangers human health, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. Green plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis to create the food plants and animals need to survive. The EPA stated that it based its finding on three lines of evidence. These lines of evidence do not exist, or no longer exist. They are: (1) a distinct human fingerprint in the atmosphere over the tropics; (2) late 20th century warming was unusual; and (3) climate models predict that human-caused warming would become dangerous to humans in the 21st century. No one, including the National Academy of Sciences, has been able to find the distinct human fingerprint except those who falsely claim such a warming is uniquely human-caused,” he said.

“Late 20th century warming stopped about 18 years ago. Climate models cannot explain why, even though, according to the White House, federal expenditures on climate science and programs to fight global warming/climate change amount to about $22.5 billion a year. There is no scientific reason to assume significant warming will occur in the future from human carbon dioxide emission.”

Haapala said it’s “past time to stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat to human health.”

Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, pointed out that the established criteria of global-warming alarmists shows their models are not reliable.

“In 2008, the NOAA ‘State of the Climate’ report specified exactly what observations would indicate whether the models are reliable or not: Fifteen years of no warming. In 2009, climate scientist Phil Jones agreed, telling a colleague in one of the leaked Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,’” Harris said.

“Having just passed 18 years with no warming, the criteria, as set by alarmists themselves, is now satisfied. The global warming scare is over,” Harris said.

H. Sterling Burnett, research fellow at the institute and managing editor at Environment & Climate News, said this year’s high school graduates “were raised to believe in and fear something that stopped happening before they were born.”

“Growing Antarctic ice sheets, increased greening of the earth, more walruses and polar bears than at any time since the beginning of the 20th century, fewer hurricanes and tornadoes, only a modest sea level rise, longer life spans and better overall health … if these are the terrors of global warming, I’ll have more please.”

James Rust, retired professor of nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech, said there have been dozens of “explanations” for the “pause in global warming – most claiming heat is hidden somewhere in the ocean.”

“These claims are fiction, as was the claim by a British meteorologist in 2001 that children today, in 2014, would never witness snow,” he said.

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, said the evidence simply shows carbon dioxide is not the “overriding driver of the climate.”

And meteorologist John Coleman said it’s time to get over it.

“There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”

Mischa Popoff, institute policy adviser, said, “Here we are in 2014 and there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.”

Alan Caruba of the National Anxiety Center said that after 18 years of observing no increase in average global temperature, it’s bad enough that the IPCC and it’s defenders won’t concede they were wrong, and the media won’t report it.

“But the worst of this 18-year anniversary of the lack of warming is the fact we have a president, a secretary of state and others in the Obama administration who continue not only to proclaim warming – now called climate change – but suggesting that it is the greatest threat to the nation and the world,” he said. “The absurdity of this should hold them up to ridicule, but these pronouncements are published without criticism.”

He said the current cooling cycle Earth is experiencing will continue for many years to come.

The cause, he said, is “nothing more mysterious than our sun – which is, itself, in a natural cycle of lower radiation.”

“As always, nature, not man, will have the last word.”

Just days ago, WND columnist Lord Monckton wrote: “Worldwide, the liarists – growing ever more desperate as the Great Pause grows ever longer – are taking up the cry that The Models Were Right All Along But The Warming Has Gone Into Hiding, Really And Truly It Has, With Knobs On, Cross My Heart And Hope To Die, So There.

“Just one problem with that. The catastrophist clique no longer entirely controls the scientific journals. It tried to, but it didn’t get away with it. In addition to ‘The ocean ate my global warming,’ the scientific journals contain a host of recent papers giving between them no less than 25 – yes, 25 – mutually incompatible explanations of the Great Pause.”

One year ago, Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw its coldest days ever, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth.

The holes in the theory have been documented. For example, London’s Independent newspaper declared at the turn of the millennium “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he claimed at the time.

But the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”

The rhetoric and predictions of global warming acolytes have been every bit as confusing in the United States, with former vice president and carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore telling an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” And his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.

Well-known scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

They say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth.”

Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cal Tech, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

He told WND that weather does change over time and that the global system goes through cycles, some slightly warmer and some slightly cooler than others.

Right now it’s cooler, he said.

Be Sociable, Share!

Intelligent people Know the Climate Agenda is an Unaffordable Waste of Time and Resources!

Owen Paterson To Call For Suspension Of UK Climate Change Act

power-lines-ukBritain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week. Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed. He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say. Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet. –Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013

It is safe to predict that no speech made by a British politician this week will be more surprising or significant than that to be delivered by Owen Paterson, a senior Conservative, who was sacked from the Cabinet last July for being too good at his job. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014

The high cost of energy could drive companies out of the UK, according to the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation.  The EEF claims that the projected 50 per cent rise in electricity prices by 2020 would harm British manufacturing. The warning follows research from the EEF which shows that rising energy costs would lead to a quarter of manufacturers considering investment overseas. —Yorkshire Post, 13 October 2014

The very idea that an advanced economy such as ours faces an energy crisis within the next few years should attract the most urgent attention of our political leaders. Yet we appear to be drifting into a situation of great seriousness because they are all wedded to unrealistic decarbonisation targets that none seems willing to revisit. Owen Paterson has begun a debate that cannot be shut down simply because it raises some difficult political questions. If this is not gripped now, then the next government, of whatever stripe, will need to explain to the country why they could have prevented the lights going out, but didn’t. –Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014

EU leaders face difficult negotiations to agree a package of climate change targets for 2030 at an end-of-October summit, with coal-reliant Poland leading objections, sources said on Friday. “The European Council will agree on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework for the European Union,” said the draft prepared for the bloc’s 28 member state leaders. But the question of “burden sharing” is central to actually closing a deal, a European source said, with sharp differences between those dependent on fossil fuels, such as Poland, compared with France and Britain which favour nuclear, and Germany which is looking towards renewables. Poland’s new prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, said earlier this month that her coal-reliant country would not rule out vetoing the high carbon cuts. —AFP, 10 October 2014

Forget QE, surely the precipitous oil price decline in the last couple of weeks will finally give the down-trodden European economy the big boost it needs. After three years of prices north of $100 a barrel, surely a big cut in Europe’s energy bill will provide a stimulus effect that Mario Draghi could only dream of? I’m afraid not. Why? Europe is overwhelmed by taxation, subsidy, over-capacity and green incentivisation plans that have conspired to make hydrocarbons a dirty and expensive source of energy. –Steve Sedgwick, City A.M., 7 October 2014

Canadian Nuclear Association claims wind energy isn’t green

By John Miner, The London Free Press

Samsung's South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road. Mike Hensen/The London Free Press

Samsung’s South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road.

I’m green and you’re not.

​The battle to be embraced as the best environmental choice for Ontario’s electricity supply is getting down and dirty.

Fed up with the wind farm sector enjoying what it considers an undeserved reputation as a pristine energy supplier, Canada’s nuclear industry has launched a public relations assault against wind.

“Wind power isn’t as clean as its supporters have claimed. It performs unreliably and needs backup from gas, which emits far more greenhouse gas than either wind or nuclear power,” said Dr. John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, in an email to The Free Press.

The Canadian Nuclear Association hired Toronto-based Hatch Ltd., a global consulting an engineering firm, to compare wind farm and nuclear energy.

Hatch reviewed 246 studies, mostly from North America and Europe,.

Their 91- page report released last week concludes that wind energy over the life time of an installation produces slightly less green house gas than nuclear and both produce a lot less than gas-fired generating plants.

But Hatch says it is an entirely different picture when wind energy’s reliance on other generating sources is considered.

The engineering firm calculates wind turbines only generate 20% of their electrical capacity because of the times when the wind isn’t blowing.

When gas-fired generating stations are added into the equation to pick up the slack, nuclear produces much less green house gases, the Hatch study concludes.

Its analysis is for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced nuclear power emits 18.5 grams of greenhouse gases. Wind backed by natural gas produces more than 20 times more – 385 grams per kilowatt hour.

“We wanted a real-world, apples to apples comparison of how nuclear, wind and natural gas power plants generate greenhouse gases while producing electricity,” Barrett said.

The nuclear industry attack on wind might not be a welcome message for the Ontario Liberal government that has justified its multi-billion dollar investment in Southwestern Ontario wind farms on the basis it is providing green energy.

But it is a position that resonates with Ontario’s anti-wind farm movement.

“We share their concerns on this issue and have been speaking about this for years. We have taken advice from engineers in the power industry, who say that wind power cannot fulfill any of the environmental benefit promises made for it, because it needs fossil-fuel backup.,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.

On the other side of the debate, the Canadian Wind Energy Association said it has had an opportunity to review the Hatch study.

It said there is no surprise that when wind and natural gas generation are paired that the mix creates more greenhouse gases than nuclear. But when wind is paired with other potential electricity suppliers the results are different.

“Realistic, alternative scenarios see wind energy partnered with hydroelectric power, varying mixes of emerging renewable energy sources like solar energy, and the use of energy storage and demand side management.

“Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only one scenario, the study failed to consider a broad range of equally or more plausible scenarios for the evolution of Canada’s electricity grid.

CanWea also argues wind energy is cheaper than new nuclear, is cost competitive with new hydroelectric development and is not subjuect to the commodity and carbon price risks facing natural gas.

“We are confident that no potential source of new electricity generation in Canada better addresses these multiple objectives than wind energy,” CanWea said in a statement.

As for the natural gas industry, it points out that it is much better for the environment than burning coal or oil for power.

“It can substantially reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint and is the ideal complement to intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar for power generation,” says the Ontario Natural Gas Alliance.

Canadian Nuclear Association arguments against wind power

  • a wind turbine usually produces only 20 percent of its potential power. If a turbine can physically produce up to one megawatt (MW) of electricity, then it typically turns in one-fifth of that, or 200 kilowatts (kW).
  • because we don’t have big-enough batteries yet to store electricity from wind turbines, the power company needs to get the other 800 kW from somewhere else, like a gas plant.
  • in Ontario, power demand is highest during the day, and in the summer. But the wind blows mostly at night, and in the winter and spring. By its nature, wind power finds itself out of step with power demand

How Ontario’s electricity was produced by fuel type​

2013

Nuclear: 59.2%

Hydro: 23.4%

Gas: 11.1%

Wind: 3.4%

Coal: 2.1%

Other: 0.8%

Oct. 13, 2014 at 8 a.m.

Nuclear: 65.8%

Hydro: 24.6%

Wind: 5.9%

Gas: 2.7%​

john.miner@sunmedia.ca

World-wide Energy Poverty Worsens, as Governments Enforce Unaffordable Energy Policies

Video: why renewables equal death

energy_poverty

Videographer Paul Budline writes:

First, pardon the overwrought subject heading.  But I would like as many people as possible to see a 5-minute piece that I just finished.  It focuses on the unintended consequences of marchers demanding an end to fossil fuels.
It’s obviously shot on a shoestring and relies heavily on stock footage, but it’s an important topic:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSugIzPGa5I

Time to End the Global Warming Scam….Before it Ruins the World’s Economies!

Global warming: Can Owen Paterson save us from an unimaginable energy disaster?

There is no way of meeting the Climate Change Act’s targets, except by closing down Britain’s entire economy

Owen Paterson visits the Northmoor Pumping Station in Moorland

Owen Paterson visits the Northmoor Pumping Station in Moorland  Photo: Getty Images

Mr Paterson will, for the first time, reveal clearly just what we have now been committed to under the two Lib Dem ministers, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, who, since 2010, have presided over our energy and climate change policy. Most of this is hidden away in policy documents so obscure that few non-insiders have any idea of where we are heading. But Paterson will explain, first, what is really now being planned, and, second, why it cannot conceivably work. He will then set out what hard-headed technical experts believe to be the only practical policy that could save us from an almost unimaginable national disaster.

1. The reality of our existing policy

Key to all our present energy policy is the fact that Britain is now, uniquely in the world, legally committed under Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act to cutting our CO₂ emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2050. When this Act – which Mr Paterson wants repealed – passed almost unanimously through Parliament in 2008, not one politician tried to explain how in practice such a target might be achieved. But since then, the officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) have been trying to devise ways in which it might be possible, within 36 years, to eliminate those four-fifths of all the CO₂ emissions on which any modern economy depends.

Their declared aim, at an estimated cost of £1.1 trillion, is the almost complete “decarbonisation” of our economy. Astonishingly, this means that, before 2030, the Government plans to eliminate almost all use of the fossil fuels we currently use to generate 70 per cent of our electricity, to cook and heat our homes and workplaces, and to power virtually all our transport. They want all our existing coal- and gas-fired power stations to close.

Out will go petrol-driven vehicles, along with all gas-powered cooking and central heating. These are to be replaced by such a massive switch to electricity for heating and powering our vehicles that it will require a doubling of our electricity needs. Much of this is to come from “renewables”, such as wind turbines; most of the rest from new nuclear power stations – although, after 2030, new gas- and coal-fired power stations will again be allowed, on condition that all the CO₂ they emit is buried in holes in the ground (what is called “carbon capture and storage”, or CCS).

2. Why the policy cannot work

Mr Paterson will then show how any hope of achieving those Decc targets hidden away in a mass of opaque documents is, in practical terms, just pure make-believe. The EU would have us provide 60GW of electricity from wind turbines, which, thanks to the wind’s intermittency, would require a total capacity of 180GW. We would thus have to spend £360 billion on some 90,000 giant wind turbines, 85,000 more than we have at present, covering an area the size of Scotland.

To meet our 2050 target would require building 2,500 new windmills every year for 36 years, a rate eight times greater than we have managed in the past decade.

Because wind is so unreliable, the Government hopes instead to keep the lights on by adding 1.5GW of power every year until 2050 from huge, new “zero carbon” nuclear power stations. But we can already see what a pipe dream this is, from the only plant so far given approval, at Hinkley Point in Somerset. This is not expected to begin generating its 3.2GW until 2023, at a cost now estimated to have soared sixfold, to a staggering £24 billion.

Equally wishful thinking is Decc’s belief that by 2030 we might have “carbon capture and storage”. Even if this can ever be made to work on a commercial scale, its costs could treble the price of their electricity. As for providing electric replacements for two thirds of the 36 million vehicles on Britain’s roads, last year’s uptake was just 10,000. At this rate, we might get there in 20,000 years’ time.

In other words, there is not a chance of meeting any of Decc’s targets, except by closing down virtually our entire economy. So, as Mr Paterson will ask on Wednesday, is there any way in which such an incredible disaster can be averted?

3. Paterson’s ‘Plan B’

Having consulted a range of practical experts, Paterson will end by suggesting a revolutionary new energy policy, based only on proven technologies. This might not meet the requirements of the Climate Change Act, but at least it could achieve a dramatic cut in our CO₂ emissions (for what that is worth) – and, unlike Decc’s policy, his “Plan B” could guarantee to keep our lights on, our buildings heated, and our now almost wholly computer-dependent economy still functioning.

The first leg of his new policy would be to tackle what has long been one of the real scandals of the way we use energy, by wasting colossal amounts of heat from power generation. This could be used to warm most of the buildings in the country by what is known as “combined heat and power” (CHP). Official figures from the US government show just how dramatically gas-fired CHP compares with the inefficiencies of wind and solar power. At well over twice their efficiency, a CHP system can generate more than twice as much electricity as wind, and, furthermore, produces large quantities of heat, at significantly less cost – while actually saving 50 per cent more in CO₂ emissions. And if ever we can emulate the “shale revolution” that has recently cut US gas prices by two-thirds, the costs of CHP would be even lower.

The second proposal is that, instead of relying for nuclear power only on hugely expensive plants such as Hinkley Point, using obsolete reactor designs, we should look to hundreds of mini-reactors. These would be similar to those that have been used safely for decades to power ships (Rolls-Royce has been running one for 50 years next to Derby football ground). These could thus be installed much nearer to population centres, both to generate electricity and to power CHP district heating schemes.

The third leg, the only one Decc is currently looking at, is to use the latest computer technology to provide what is called “demand management”. This uses sophisticated techniques to reduce electricity demand so drastically that we could actually reduce our capacity by 40 per cent, without anyone noticing.

The stark alternatives, Mr Paterson will conclude, are that either we continue down the present course, which cannot begin to achieve any of its desired goals – or we can adopt an entirely new strategy, which could actually allow us to survive as an industrial nation.

In his lecture on Wednesday, he will be the first politician to kick off a properly realistic debate on Britain’s energy future. It could not be more desperately overdue.

Wind Industry is NOT Viable, and we Can’t afford to Support Them!

Photo: Ingram/Getty Images

One of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers let loose a bit of truth and self-admission to the Financial Times: We still need help, and that help must come from taxpayers.

The wind production tax credit, a generous $23 per-megawatt-hour tax credit the producer receives for 10 years, expired last year. At that rate, taxpayers are effectively covering half the wholesale price of electricity and, in some areas of the country, the entire wholesale price. The PTC expired at the end of 2013, but several policymakers are pushing for an extension.

Lisa Davis, who leads the global energy business at Siemens, told the Financial Times the wind industry was close to grid parity with conventional sources of electricity such as coal and natural gas, but “we’re not there yet.”

“We’ve not yet got to the point where it’s truly self-sustaining,” she said. “We’ve got to focus on cost competitiveness.”

So the way to become self-sustaining and cost-competitive is to plead for extended reliance on the taxpayer? That is exactly why Congress needs to cut the cord on wind energy subsidies from the federal government. The wind industry cannot focus on lowering costs while it is so heavily subsidized because subsidies enable them to ignore costs. So, rather than trying to achieve the true price point necessary for cost-competitiveness, the wind industry concentrates on securing more subsidies. Eliminating the PTC for good will allow wind producers to become self-sustaining if the technology truly can compete with other sources of energy.

If wind cannot compete, then it doesn’t belong in our energy mix. America has a robust and diverse supply of electricity generation where our energy demands are met through coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower and other renewable sources. We don’t need the federal government to create artificial diversity that wastes taxpayer dollars and promotes stagnation. This holds true for all energy sources.

The reality is startups and new ideas and technologies succeed and fail all of the time. Failure should not be a signal for the federal government to come to the rescue; it’s a signal those resources can be put to more productive use in the economy. But the wind industry is no start-up. It’s been more than 22 years since Matthew Wald of the New York Times wrote, “Because of striking improvements in technology, the commercial use of these windmills, or wind turbines as the builders call them, has shown that in addition to being pollution free, they can now compete with fossil fuels in the cost of producing electricity.”

There is no justification for propping up established companies, either. If Chi Chi’s pleaded for handouts to stay competitive with the likes of Applebees, or Microsoft told America it needed support from the taxpayer to sell more Zunes, policymakers rightfully would scoff. Those companies didn’t fail because they weren’t cost competitive; they simply offered a product consumers didn’t want to buy.

Rather than creating a sustainable industry, the PTC artificially propped up an industry, advanced special interests and allocated labor and capital away from more competitive uses in the marketplace. Extending the credit would only exacerbate those problems and complicate opportunities for real tax reform. Congress should hold its ground and keep the sun set on the wind PTC.

Climate Fraud Exposed…..AGAIN!! These Fools Are Not Giving up Easily!

EPA Defrauding The Public About Alaskan Glaciers

The EPA has these images on their web site – claiming to show how global warming is causing the Muir Glacier to disappear.

ScreenHunter_22-Dec.-28-10.55

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/

What they forgot to mention is that most of the retreat pictured above occurred between 1941 and 1950.

ScreenHunter_235-Apr.-06-19.30

This August 1950 photo documents the significant changes that occurred during the 9 years between photographs A and B. Muir Glacier has retreated more than 2 miles, exposing Muir Inlet, and thinned 340 feet or more.

Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay National Monument 1950

And of course this retreat had been going on for centuries

ScreenHunter_236-Apr.-06-19.38

For nearly two centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating. In places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost.

USGS Multimedia Gallery: Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay National Monument 1941

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif

ScreenHunter_638 Jun. 24 06.44

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?]

Climate Change Alarmists Will Try Anything, to Scare People!

IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS ARE STUCK ON MISERY

We’ve all seen the article this week about the haulout of 35,000 walruses that congregated at Point Lay, Alaska, but in case you missed it, click here.  This is normal behaviour for walruses.  In fact the first recorded sighting of this sort of behaviour was made by an English expedition in 1604. They happen all over the world.  Nothing unusual about this at all.

Walrus haulout in Russia

Walrus haulout -- Icy Cape, Alaska

Cape Pierce, Alaska -- 2010

In usual climate alarmist fashion, though, we must regularly wail and gnash our teeth over everything these days.  There is no such thing as natural or normal in the Land of Global Warming.  It’s all become one giant cluster …. well you know … in the typical alarmist mind.

This normal behaviour was twisted around to be a terrible event, of course caused by evil man.  The story recycles every few years and increasingly gains coverage in the main stream media each time. The ‘alarming’ part of the article this year, was the sheer number of walruses at one haulout — 35,000.

Now a normal person would say, “Wow!  Good to see that the walruses are thriving in this apocalyptic climate change world.”   Okay, no normal person would say “apocalyptic climate change”.   That’s a term only the zealots of catastrophic climate change would use.

The point is however that, clearly, walrus populations are doing quite well, in spite of the fact that alarmists would have us believe that every species on earth (with the exception of wicked vile humans) is on the verge of extinction due to our unbridled greed.

So instead of rejoicing and being thrilled that one species in particular is flourishing, misery reigns supreme in the land of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  I wonder if they would be happier with this: walrus ice floe

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

defrock.org's principal concern is the environmental and human damage of industrial wind turbines on rural communities

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem