Faux-green

The Folks in Ireland Don’t Want the Useless Wind Turbines…..No Wonder!

/ 1957chev / 4 Comments

The Fightin’ Irish Go to War Over Wind Farm Plans for Emerald Isle

October 3, 2014 by

1397574371-dublin-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-pylons-and-wind-turbines_4479876

There aren’t many guarantees in life – death and taxes spring to mind: to which can be added community opposition to giant fans.

Wherever wind farms have appeared – or have been threatened – big numbers of locals take a set against the monsters being speared into their previously peaceful – and often idyllic – rural communities. Their anger extends to the goons that lied their way to development approval – and the bent officials that rubber-stamped their applications and who, thereafter, help the operators ride roughshod over locals’ rights to live in and enjoy the peace and comfort of their own homes and properties.

More than 2,000 groups have sprung up all over the Globe to fight-back against the great wind power fraud (see our post here).

The Scots are on the brink of another round of Highland wars (see our posts here and here and here).

The Danes are suing and being awarded substantial compensation for turbine noise impacts on the value of their homes (see our post here).

The Taiwanese aren’t afraid to take a beating from developers’ goons in order to prevent fans from going up (see our posts here and here).

In the USA, locals are joining forces to take their persecutors to court to either prevent wind farms from being built or to have them shut down to allow them to sleep (see our posts here and here). Among those Americans taking developers to court is a group of Texans being paid as turbine hosts who are suing for remedies in nuisance (see our post here).

Canadians in Ontario are on the brink of open revolt against the hard-green-left nutjobs that have wrecked their economy and environment – as covered in the brilliant Sun News documentary, Down Wind (see our posts here and here and here and here).

In Australia, dozens of threatened communities are united in their efforts to drive a stake through the wind industry’s heart (see our posts here andhere and here).

What makes them angrier still, is knowing that all that actual or threatened grief and suffering is for nothing: rather than being an answer to the planet’s prayers, wind power represents the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time (see our post here).

The power produced by wind farms comes at crazy, random intervals and is, therefore, of no commercial value: it would never find a market without mandated targets, massive subsidies or whopping penalties (seeour post here).

And, despite big claims, the wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector; principally because it can’t (see our post here).

The Irish have already hit the streets to bring an end to the fraud: some 10,000 stormed Dublin back in April. The sense of anger in Ireland – as elsewhere – is palpable (see our post here).

Now they’re tooling up for a raft of litigation in order to prevent the construction of wind farms, wherever they’ve been threatened on the Emerald Isle. Here’s the Sunday Independent on the escalating wind farm wars in Ireland.

Communities’ €50,000 war chests to fight wind farms
Sunday Independent
John Drennan
28 September 2014

Rural groups across the country have embarked on a new fundraising drive to pay for a series of High Court challenges to controversial wind-farm and pylon projects, the Sunday Independent has learned.

Activists claim amounts of up to €50,000 are being raised by individual communities to mount up to a dozen new challenges before the end of the year.

The renewed rural revolt comes amid a growing belief among protesters that the Government and An Bord Pleanala are not defending the interests of small rural communities.

There are currently six groups challenging An Bord Pleanala decisions on various wind-farms projects in the courts.

However, one senior anti-wind farm activist said this was “just the tip of the iceberg”. He told the Sunday Independent: “There will be funds raised for a dozen challenges by the end of this year.”

Ongoing anger at the wind-farm and pylon plans was evident at the Ploughing Championships in Co Laois last week, where there were flash-mob demonstrations at the Fine Gael and Labour stands.

Labour Senator John Whelan, who has campaigned against wind farms, said: “The angry exchanges are indicative of how tormented ordinary citizens are by this issue.”

Such is the scale of rural anger over the ongoing threat to the landscape posed by wind farms and pylons, community groups have not found it difficult to secure the funding to mount the legal challenges.

The Co Laois village of Cullenagh alone raised €40,000 in just one week to fund its own High Court challenge.

Henry Fingleton, from the anti-wind farm group, Wind Aware, told the Sunday Independent: “It was astonishing. Once we decided to go to the courts to protect Cullenagh, 20 people immediately came up with €1,000 each. Ordinary citizens do not have that money, but people do not want to see their communities being destroyed, they cannot take the risk of not challenging these decisions.”

However, Senator Whelan lamented the fact that hard-pressed rural householders are having to dig deep into their own pockets to take on the State.

He told the Sunday Independent: “Communities are being sucked dry to make barristers wealthy as they take on a State and state bodies that now appear to be the enemy. This is diverting resources away from villages that could be used to build playgrounds for children or GAA clubhouses.

“Community groups are being driven to the courts by frustration over the abject failure of the planning process and a total absence of confidence in the political process.”

Anti-wind farm and pylon groups are now actively planning to punish the Coalition by targeting government seats in the next general election.

After a recent meeting of 85 local action groups in Co Laois, a further gathering has been planned where the protesters will “design a political strategy to focus on TDs whose seats are vulnerable”.

Mr Fingleton added: “One of the key actions coming to the next election will be to put pressure on Fine Gael. Until they feel that their seats are under threat and they are going to lose votes through this, they are not going to act in our interest.”

Another anti-wind farm protester warned it would be a “major issue” in next month’s Roscommon-South Leitrim by-election.

Tensions among rural groups have been exacerbated by delays in introducing proposed new stricter planning guidelines for pylons and wind farms. Some activists have reported that there has been here has been “a headlong rush of developers to get their applications in before the new regime comes in”.

One protester told the Sunday Independent: “In recent months in Tipperary alone there have been 14 applications alone for wind farms; we will have turbines at every crossroads in the county before this is done.”
Sunday Independent

THE QUIET MAN - BY JOHN FORD

Topics like Climate and Wind Turbines, really bring out the trolls…here’s why!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

New paper says what we always suspected – and climate Internet trolls are some of the worst…

/ 5 hours ago October 2, 2014

From Psychology Today: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists(h/t to John Goetz)

Troll_closet_scr

Above: the Josh rendition of the troll known as “andthentheresphysics” who may have a rude awakening very soon. Image not to scale.

[NOTE: I’ve always believed that people who taunt others while hiding behind fake names aren’t really contributing anything except their own bile and hatred. The two people that came to mind when I read this article were Dr. Joshua Halpern of Howard University aka “Eli Rabett” and Miriam O’Brien aka Sou Bundanga/Hotwhopper. These people are supposed to be professionals, yet they position themselves as childish cowards, spewing invective from the safety of anonymity while taunting people who have the integrity and courage to put their real names to their words. The best way to combat people like this is to call them out by their name every time they practice their dark art. To that end, and not just for these two losers, I’m stepping up moderation on WUWT. If you want to rant/spew from the comfort of anonymity, find someplace else to do it, because quite frankly I’m in a position in my life where I don’t have the time to deal with this sort of juvenile crap. Be on your best behavior, otherwise its the bit bucket for you.Moderators, take note.. – Anthony]

Psychology Today:  Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists

A new study shows that internet trolls really are just terrible human beings.
Published on September 18, 2014 by Jennifer Golbeck, Ph.D. in Your Online Secrets
 

In this month’s issue of Personality and Individual Differences, a study was published that confirms what we all suspected: internet trolls are horrible people.Let’s start by getting our definitions straight. An internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response. 

What kind of person would do this?

Canadian researchers decided to find out. They conducted two internet studies with over 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the Dark Tetrad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadistic personality.

They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among internet trolls, check out this figure from the paper:

Look at how low the scores are for everyone except the internet trolls! Their scores for all four terrible personality traits soar on the chart. The relationship between this Dark Tetrad and trolling is so significant, that the authors write the following in their paper:

“… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.” [emphasis added]

Trolls truly enjoy making you feel bad. To quote the authors once more (because this is a truly quotable article):

“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun … and the Internet is their playground!”

Full article here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed

The paper:

Trolls just want to have fun

  • Erin E. Buckels ,Paul D. Trapnell, Delroy L. Paulhus

Abstract

In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Steve Minick from Texas Association of Business on the EPA Clean Power Plan

Posted on October 2, 2014 by | 

This is a stunningly good letter that was presented to the Hearing of the Texas House on the latest EPA insanity–the Clean Power Plan. Wanna know what’s wrong with the EPA, read Minick’s letter for a place to start.

Minick takes the EPA big plan apart and shows it to be a empty portfolio of nonsense and bad policy making.

Minick is an important voice for Business in Texas–an eloquent and knowledgeable man.

I highlighted some of the important stuff.

September 29, 2014

The Honorable Patricia Harless, Chairman
Committee on Environmental Regulation
Texas House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

RE: Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan under Clean Air Act Section 111(d)

Chairman Harless:

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Speaker’s charge to the committee to study the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan. TAB is a broad-based, bipartisan organization representing more than 4,000 Texas employers and over 200 local chambers of commerce. As Texas’ leading employer organization for more than 90 years, TAB represents some of the largest multi-national corporations as well as small businesses in almost every community in the state. Our business members and local chambers of commerce have a vital interest in the outcome of any decision by EPA to fundamentally alter the management and operation of the state’s electric power system and the effects such a proposal represents for the reliability and cost of critical electric supply in Texas.

EPA’s proposal to impose existing source performance standards for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under Clean Air Act §111(d) is yet another in a series of rulemakings from EPA that regrettably departs even further from the cooperative partnership between EPA and the states that Congress envisioned in the passage of the Clean Air Act. The Act states clearly that air pollution prevention at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments. In addition to being inconsistent with the fundamental principle of cooperative federalism, the proposed Clean Power Plan is equally inconsistent with other specific provisions of the Clean Air Act. Beyond its questionable legal basis, however, the Committee should also be made aware that this rule, if enacted, will impose significant costs on Texas businesses and consumers, severely test our electric grid and reliability of electric service and effectively relinquish control of our power system to the federal government. Incredibly, even EPA’s own analysis shows plainly that this rule, intended to address climate change by reducing emissions of GHGs, will have no measureable effect on climate change.

Background and Description of the Clean Power Plan
EPA’s proposal to impose existing source performance standards for GHGs follows directly the failure of the current administration to move cap and trade legislation through Congress and is a well-recognized step in EPA’s long range plan to remove coal as a source of fuel for power generation in this country. An earlier step in that plan is the imposition of GHG performance standards for new sources. That rule, which will ensure that no new coal-fired power plants are built, was proposed in September 2013. This next step, proposed in June of 2014, will ensure the closure of many of the existing coal-fired plants. President Obama, in speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008 outlined without any confusion his plan for coal power:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants…would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

The Clean Power Plan bears a resemblance to another increasingly familiar aspect of rulemaking under the Clean Air Act – obscuring any technical justification or analysis of a proposed rule in more pages of background than can reasonably be read and understood by the average interested party, certainly any affected party with limited time and resources. In this case, the rule itself only occupies some 38 pages of text, but that is then followed by over 600 pages of preamble with references to some 350 footnotes. Then comes a lengthy regulatory impact analysis and multiple technical support documents and then references to some 620 supporting documents.

While those affected by the rule might hope to find at least clarity in the rule’s purpose and effect in this massive production, even many of those who are supportive of the rule have expressed concern and uncertainty as to what it means, how it will affect their jurisdictions and, perhaps most importantly, how it can possibly be implemented.

Basis of the Clean Power Plan Rule
Under the Clean Power Plan EPA proposes to impose performance standards for existing power plants for GHG emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. In the previous 40 years EPA has used this authority in approximately five cases, and arguably never for any major source of emissions. Section 111(d) allows EPA to establish performance standards for existing sources of emissions and requires that any standards imposed reflect emission limitations achievable through what is defined as a Best System of Emission Reductions (BSER). But in this proposed rule, EPA abandons any rational definition of both source and system in the context of what Section 111(d) actually authorizes. Under the Clean Power Plan, emission reductions would apply not to a source of emissions (a power plant) but conceivably to every element of the state’s entire electric power system.

Further stretching the authority of 111(d), EPA does not propose any system of emission reduction technology, but instead, argues that each state can reach emission reduction targets through a variety of measures, including:

1. Improving efficiency of coal-fired electric generators by 6%;
2. Increasing the operation of natural gas-fired electric generators to 70% of current capacity;
3. Increasing the contribution of renewable energy sources up to 25%; and
4. Increasing the reductions in power consumption through demand response by 9-12%
An obvious observation of these “suggested” paths to compliance with GHG emission limitations is that, while they may indirectly affect emissions, none of them is actually a “system” of emission reductions applied to a “source” of emissions. In other words, EPA proposes to limit GHG emissions by not requiring any direct control of the emission of GHGs at their source. Put another way, the agency is proposing a rule under Section 111(d) that imposes requirements in no way authorized under Section 111(d). Within very specific conditions, EPA has authority to limit emissions by determining an appropriate system of controls for those emissions at their source.EPA does not have the authority to re-design our entire system for the generation, transmission, use or conservation of electric power to indirectly impact the production of GHGs.

Target Emission Rates
The key to the Clean Power Plan is target emission rates that EPA has determined for each affected state. Again, these are not targets applicable to actual sources of emissions (electric power plants) but overall targets applicable on a state-wide basis. In fact, it is accurate to acknowledge that under a statutory provision that authorizes control of sources of pollution, EPA is proposing a target for emission rates that is simply applied to an entire state, and not to any one source of pollution.

Beyond the obvious concern with the underlying statutory authority being cited, a major concern with the states’ emission targets is that the massive submission and supporting documentation still do not reveal any apparent rationale for the emission rates that are proposed. The rates assigned to individual states vary substantially and for reasons that are very difficult to comprehend. Somehow, under a rule presumably intended to reduce the emissions of a pollutant that we are told has serious negative implications for public welfare, some states are allowed to actually increase emissions of GHGs. Some observations of EPA’s proposed emission reduction targets may help to illustrate the difficulty in understanding a valid technical basis:

1. GHG emission reduction targets for the states range from an 83% reduction (for Washington) to a 37% increase (for Rhode Island).
2. Washington must reduce GHG emissions by 83%, Oregon by 42% and California by 7%.
3. Texas must reduce emissions by 42% and Oklahoma 41%, while Kansas and Nebraska can increase emissions by 10%.
4. South Dakota must decrease emissions by 4% but North Dakota can increase emissions by 1%.
5. Idaho has a reduction target of 49%, Wyoming 31%; Montana can increase emissions 8%.
6. Mississippi faces a target reduction of 62%, but Alabama 32%.
7. 3%.Virginia must reduce GHG emissions by 35%, West Virginia 0%.
8. Tennessee must reduce GHG emissions by 20%; Kentucky can increase emissions by 3%.
These examples are only some of the observations that clearly raise far more questions than EPA’s proposal provides answers. The rationale of EPA appears to be an acknowledgment that each state is different and faces different challenges and opportunities for reducing GHG emissions. But in no provision of the Clean Air Act is EPA authorized to invent a plan for reducing emissions from existing sources without actually imposing requirements on existing sources and then allocate obligations to each of the states based on what in some opinion of EPA each state is capable of accomplishing. Beyond EPA’s questionable authority to impose such emission targets, it must also be recognized that the states on which fall the obligations to comply may lack much of the statutory authority to do what EPA outlines in its suggested “system” of emission reductions.

It must also be recognized that Texas is singled out for special treatment under this proposed rule. While Texas’ required percentage reduction in GHG emissions is not as large as some states (42%), when applied to the actual magnitude of Texas’ electric generation capacity the figures become very revealing of the real impact of the rule. Texas is clearly the largest producer and consumer of power in the U.S, but that status is merely a reflection of Texas’ position as a producer of fuel, manufactured goods and other products that meet the needs of the other states and our global trading partners. Under the Clean Power Plan, Texas is far and away the most significantly affected state:

• By 2030, Texas must reduce coal-fired electric generation by over 72 million megawatt hours (MWH), Florida is a distant second at just over 40 million MWH.
• Texas’ required GHG reductions by 2030 are almost three times greater than those required of second place Florida and dwarf the requirements for any other state.
• To comply, Texas must reduce its coal-fired electric generation by over 53%; Indiana and Kentucky, the two closest states to Texas in terms of coal-fired generation, must reduce their generation from coal by 4.8% and 1%, respectively.
• Texas leads the nation in the production of renewable energy. But by 2030, Texas must increase its use of renewable energy almost five times as much as the state closest to Texas in renewable energy capacity, California.
The significant variation and seemingly random allocation of emission targets to the different states, and certainly the significantly greater impact of the rule on Texas, are clearly impacts that demand a far more detailed and reasoned explanation before this rule receives any further consideration by EPA.

Costs and Benefits of the Clean Air Plan
There is no question that implementation of the Clean Air Plan will significantly affect the electric generation industry and consumers of power, from the largest industrial user to individual residential customers. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated compliance costs at approximately $50 billion. Other estimates of industry compliance costs are as “low” as $28 billion. These compliance costs to the electric industry are distinct from the actual costs to consumers which has been estimated to be a loss in disposable income of over $585 billion through 2030. Cost to manufacturers and others who use natural gas for purposes other than electric generation will also increase significantly as natural gas prices are projected to increase up to $50 billion. In addition to dollar impacts, the rule will result in some 178,000 lost jobs per year. Less easily quantified, but equally important, is the potential impact of a rule that will significantly put at risk the reliability of Texas’ electric grid, the failure of which can have extremely dramatic financial impacts, as well as public health and safety impacts.

One would assume that such a rule, with the potential for significant, negative economic consequences, would have to clearly provide benefits to public health and welfare at least as great, or even greater than the costs to justify serious consideration and certainly formal proposal. Quite surprisingly, the dramatic economic costs and potential risks to our electric power system will provide virtually no benefit whatsoever. EPA’s own analysis shows that the proposed rule will affect no more than .18 percent of global GHG emissions and offset the huge costs of its implementation by reducing global temperatures by between .01-.02 degrees C. and preventing a projected sea level rise of .016 inches.

EPA attempts to make up for the almost absurd lack of simple economic justification for the rule by suggesting that reducing operations and emissions from coal-fired power plants will have ancillary public health benefits. Even if such an unsupported position were rational, it is beyond reason to suggest that sufficient public health benefits could accrue to offset the significant costs of this rule. But the reality is that for several years and throughout EPA’s pursuit of its current air quality and energy policy agenda, the agency has continued time and again to cite ancillary benefits from reductions in emissions (e.g., PM2.5) where no public health benefit from the direct effect of the rule in question can be cited. The Clean Air Plan is simply the latest in a long line of air quality rulemaking where no public health benefit can be directly attributed to the pollutant the rule is intended to address.

Perhaps even more significant as a critique of EPA’s cost analysis is the fact that the cost/benefit equation ignores (as it does for essentially all such rules) the negative public health impacts of reducing the disposable income of those who are affected by the rule.This rule if implemented will significantly impact the costs of electricity. That cost, particularly when borne by lower income ratepayers, will reduce the ability of those ratepayers to afford other essential goods and services that directly affect their health and welfare, including medical care, medicine, adequate food and housing and the expenses required to be sufficiently educated and prepared to acquire and maintain employment. The strongly positive correlation between income and public welfare and longevity has been well established and any cost/benefit analysis that ignores it cannot be considered to be valid or credible.

Other Impacts on Texas
It has been suggested by many in support of this rule that Texas should share that support due to the positive impact the rule will have on demand for natural gas, particularly as the prices for natural gas have declined and the incentives for more production have weakened. There is also at least the implication that Texas can benefit from this rule by simply building more gas-fired electric generation and easily mitigate the loss of any coal-fired facilities, while simultaneously benefiting from the economic effects of increased gas production. Missing from this presumptive analysis is the proper recognition of the role Texas’ competitive deregulated retail electric market plays in any theoretical scenario of how this state would attempt to implement EPA’s suggested methods of compliance. In Texas the Public Utility Commission, perhaps unlike in most other states, cannot simply set a price for electricity that will provide an incentive to build new gas-fired power plants to replace coal-fired plants. It is entirely uncertain that Texas’ electric market structure will be able to react as EPA assumes it can under any requirement to replace coal-fired with gas-fired generation.

The assumption that Texas can increase natural gas electric generation while benefiting from increased natural gas production also ignores the potential impact of other air quality rules being promulgated by EPA. The proposed reduction in the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) can potentially bring large areas of Texas, including the major oil and gas production areas, into nonattainment status for ozone. Without a clearer picture of what a revised ozone NAAQS will be, what areas will be determined to be nonattainment and how such designation and subsequent ozone control measures will affect natural gas exploration and production, availability and price, it is impossible at this time to make assumptions that can dispel the many legitimate concerns about the loss of coal-fired electric capacity in Texas.

Conclusions
EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan is poorly supported by current law and suffers from a thorough lack of technical and financial justification. It truly is a rule that on its face will have enormous costs and virtually zero benefit. It fulfills the administration’s goals for a cap and trade program by making cap and trade the only viable option for some states who simply cannot reengineer their electric power systems. In fact, the proposal will conceivably reward those states that have some type of cap and trade program by enabling those states with marketable credits to sell to other states, essentially establishing a wealth transfer from coal states to non-coal states. The proposal further supports the anti-coal agenda by imposing de facto federal renewable energy standards and federal energy efficiency standards – all in one rule.

It is appropriate to question EPA’s motives in proposing a rule that has such significant questions as to its legal foundation and for which the cost/benefit analysis so clearly shows that there are no benefits. Even the EPA leadership appears somewhat uncertain as to exactly what this rule is intended to do. In testimony before the Senate Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated:

“The great thing about this [111(d)] proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants, no matter where you want to invest. It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy.”

However, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe, before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee described the same rule quite differently:

“Chairman Upton, this is not an energy plan. This is a rule done within the four corners of 111(d) that looks to the best system of emission reduction to reduce emission… The rule is a pollution control rule, as EPA has traditionally done under section 111(d).”

If EPA admits that a rule to benefit climate change has no effect on climate and is yet still unclear as to what the rule is for, it would appear prudent to postpone any further consideration at this time.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee and share our thoughts on this subject. Please contact me at 512.637.7707 or sminick@txbiz.org if you have questions or need additional information.

Respectfully,

Stephen Minick
Vice President for Governmental Affairs
Texas Association of Business

Pointman Says it Best…..Energy Poverty is Killing People!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

TELL ME WHY.

Posted by Pointman on October 2, 2014 ·

mal08

I posed some simple questions a number of articles back and I’d like to begin this piece by asking them again, because they’re fundamental.

Don’t they know how many of our own poor can no longer afford to heat their homes? Don’t they know how many millions die in the developing world from malaria because we won’t allow them access to DDT? Don’t they know that a million children a year die or are simply blinded for life by withholding the distribution golden rice? Don’t they know how many lives could be saved by supplying the poor with drought and disease resistant GM seeds? Don’t they know that switching from growing food staples to growing biofuel crops for cars only the rich can afford has more than doubled prices of basic foods? Don’t they know about the people killed in the food riots? Do they actually know anything? Do they care anyway?

There’s no oily sophistry about those questions, no sophistication, no tricky debating traps, no guile, no hidden agenda but always an essential inhumanity to the silence or uneasy evasiveness with which they’re met. I’ve raised an impolite subject. The truth is people are not dying, they’re being killed and we’re the ones through inaction doing the killing. I make no apology for being so blunt because they’re needed questions, simple questions, brutal even, and yet there’s always that awkward silence in response to them.

There really isn’t a party line on the moral dilemmas which are at the very heart of those questions, because morality is no longer about people or ones behaviour towards them, but simply about what’s good for the Earth or not. All else is secondary to that consideration. In a deeper sense though, any wider altruistic morality is now about nothing more than projecting a good image of oneself rather than any notion of common humanity.

What we’re talking about are the lives of the most vulnerable being needlessly sacrificed atop a green altar, because of an almost automatic obeisance to a new and terrible earth goddess called Gaia.

You might think those questions were addressed at the real climate fanatics, those who’re absolutely determined to save the Earth even if that means over the megadeath, rigour-mortised and stacked-high burning corpses of humanity, but you’d be wrong because as must be obvious by now, those zealots simply don’t care about such collateral damage. After all, a smaller, more “sustainable” number of people on the Earth is one of their oft expressed aspirations. Humanity is a plague on the Earth, to quote David Attenborough.

Those questions were originally directed at the religious bodies of our rich developed world but with the sure and certain expectation of nothing in reply, not only because they were rhetorical but because the churches are by now in denial or wilfully blind to the moral issues presented by those questions.

They’ve fallen so far down into the abyss of the governing elite’s unquestioned dogma, which puts the Earth before the human cost of protecting it, that they now effectively worship a graven but green image in their desert of moral desolation. They’ve lost touch with that most basic imperative of all religions – the duty of care we all have towards the poor and vulnerable. Common decency, if you will.

Those questions, like this article, are now being addressed to the footsoldier clergy of those churches; the priests and the pastors, the imams and the rabbis, the holy men, the human beings representing their respective faiths and trying to make a difference in the lives of their local congregations.

This issue is not about science, since climate science has long ago allowed itself to become a compliant and willing harlot to politics. It sucks greedily on the teat of notoriety and all integrity has long since fled. Political sentiment can be changed because it’s driven by the fickle beast of popular opinion, which you still have a measure of influence over. What can’t be changed is that this is at heart a basic moral issue and morality is an invariant which should never be subject to the passing vicissitudes of fashion or alarmed public opinion.

The killing of the innocents is wrong, standing idly by when that’s done for nothing better than a mistaken idea grown into a well-intentioned but homicidal monster or for a quick buck, is wrong. Don’t delude yourself, the moneylenders are busy at work in your temples, doing brisk business under the righteous cloak of that false goddess Gaia but in reality serving nothing other than their own god Mammon. Your silence is helping them.

I’ll pose some new questions just for you, but I’m going to help you out by giving you the answers to them.

Will you ever read this article? Probably not. Will you ever read past the first page of Google’s reassuring results from various well-heeled green NGOs about any of the above questions? No. Will you ever stop to wonder how we eradicated malaria in the developed world using DDT and still have plenty of birds and the bees? No. Will you ever try to calculate how many lives have been saved by us being malaria-free for over half a century? No. Will you think about why we’ve spent 800 billion dollars to fight global warming when the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen in nearly two decades? No. Will you consider the effect that amount of money could have had on poverty relief around the world? No.

Will you at least admit that standing idly by and not speaking out means there’s some blood on your hands? Just a touch, a smidgen even? No.

You are this very day in the midst of a silent ongoing genocide, a slowmo invisible annihilation, a new shoah of such dimensions as to put the Nazis to shame and yet you will not acknowledge it or speak out about it. You do nothing. Nothing, nada, nada and nada every time. It’s Hemingway’s prayer and that’s the prayer of those who not only believe they’ve been abandoned by God, but have ceased to believe there can even be such an entity.

“Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.”

Can there actually be a god? What sort of god could countenance such needless cruelty, suffering and callous waste of innocent lives? Deus irae? An angry god? Is there a reason? Do you have a reason? An excuse? Anything?

All those millions of preventable deaths are the direct result of political policies driven by nothing more than fashionable ideas about what our relationship with the Earth should be. In the midst of it all, you ignore the pressing issues, preferring instead to hotly debate schismatic irrelevances like female or gay priests. It’s no wonder that whole sections of churches in the developing word are considering decoupling themselves from what they consider to be out of touch mother churches in the developed nations, who simply won’t engage with real problems.

You plant saplings in leafy suburbs doing your bit to save the Earth while the poor in the developing countries are running out of shrubs to burn to keep themselves alive. You talk about living in harmony with God’s good green Earth while the poor can do nothing more than lay damp towels over their dying children and hope for the fucking best. Who needs God’s forgiveness there? All my tears outside the walls of Babylon have long ago been wept; there’s nothing left in me now but an abiding anger at you.

You are a part of the problem when you should by any decent notion of religious conviction be a major part of fixing it.

I am nothing and nobody, a small man with a small voice who long ago despaired of any faith in some sort of god. And yet I beseech you in the name of whatever god you follow to do something, or at least speak out. Like the Nazarene, you will not be rewarded for telling the simple truth.

Don’t tell me why god allows such things because there can be no reason, don’t bother debating god’s existence with me or his mysterious ways, just tell me why as a human being and a supposed man of god with some influence, you aren’t standing in your pulpit at every opportunity, raging and thundering to your congregation against such an obscene and preventable waste of human life and worse still, allowing that inhumanity to grind on day after pitiless day without doing a single thing about it.

Tell me why.

Stop the Subsidies for Wind & Make Them Follow Regulations….NOW!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

A decade after welcoming wind, states reconsider

By SEAN MURPHY 

CALUMET, Okla. (AP) — A decade ago, states offered wind-energy developers an open-armed embrace, envisioning a bright future for an industry that would offer cheap electricity, new jobs and steady income for large landowners, especially in rural areas with few other economic prospects.

To ensure the opportunity didn’t slip away, lawmakers promised little or no regulation and generous tax breaks.

But now that wind turbines stand tall across many parts of the nation’s windy heartland, some leaders in Oklahoma and other states fear their efforts succeeded too well, attracting an industry that gobbles up huge subsidies, draws frequent complaints and uses its powerful lobby to resist any reforms. The tension could have broad implications for the expansion of wind power in other parts of the country.

“What we’ve got in this state is a time bomb just waiting to go off,” said Frank Robson, a real estate developer from Claremore in northeast Oklahoma. “And the fuse is burning, and nobody is paying any attention to it.”

Today, many of the same political leaders who initially welcomed the wind industry want to regulate it more tightly, even in red states like Oklahoma, where candidates regularly rail against government interference. The change of heart is happening as wind farms creep closer to more heavily populated areas.

Opposition is also mounting about the loss of scenic views, the noise from spinning blades, the flashing lights that dot the horizon at night and a lack of public notice about where the turbines will be erected.

Robson said the industry is turning the landscape into a “giant industrial complex,” and the growing cost of the subsidies could decimate state funding for schools, highways and prisons.

Oklahoma went from three farms with 113 turbines a decade ago to more than 30 projects and 1,700 active turbines today.

With the rapid expansion came political clout. The industry now has nearly a dozen registered lobbyists working to stop new regulations and preserve generous subsidies that are expected to top $40 million this year.

Evidence of that influence can be seen at the Statehouse. A bill by the Senate president pro tem to ban any new wind farms in the eastern half of the state was quickly scuttled in the House. When state Rep. Earl Sears tried to amend the proposal to include some basic regulations for the industry, lobbyists killed that idea, too.

“I personally believe that wind power has a place in Oklahoma, but I’m frustrated,” Sears said. “I think they should have more regulations.”

Wind developers say they’re just protecting their investment — more than $6 billion spent on construction of wind farms in Oklahoma over a decade, according to a study commissioned by the industry. In addition to royalties paid to landowners, the giant turbines themselves are valued at as much as $3 million each.

Monte Tucker, a farmer and rancher from Sweetwater in far western Oklahoma, said his family has received annual payments of more than $30,000 for the four wind turbines placed on their ranch two years ago.

“We’re generating money out of thin air,” Tucker said. “And if the landowners don’t want them, the developers have to go somewhere else.”

Tucker says the turbines take only about 5 acres of his property out of production, and they have not affected the deer, turkey and quail hunting on the land. On a recent 101-degree day, he found about 40 of his cows lined up in a single row in the turbine’s shadow.

Meanwhile, a formal inquiry into how the industry operates in Oklahoma is being launched by a state regulatory agency at lawmakers’ request. The fact-finding mission could lead to legislation targeting the industry.

The turbines are subject to local property taxes after a five-year exemption for which the state reimburses local counties and schools. The exemption for wind producers was designed to offset a lifetime property tax exemption in neighboring Kansas.

In addition, the state offers wind developers tax credits based on per-kilowatt production that can be applied to any corporate income tax liability and then sold back to the state for 85 cents on the dollar. Those cash subsidies are expected to total $80 million over the next four years, according to estimates from the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Oklahoma is one of at least six states competing for wind industry development, which often breathes life into communities that have lost manufacturing jobs and family farms.

Over the last decade, the number of wind-generated megawatts has grown from 6,000 in 2003 to 61,000 last year, which equates to roughly 30,000 turbines.

The biggest wind industry boom is taking place in Texas. Iowa and Oklahoma are close behind. Other states that have announced major projects include Kansas, North Dakota and New Mexico, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group.

In Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is trying to balance his state’s embrace of wind with opposition to a 2009 state energy law that requires utilities to use more wind and other renewable sources of power. Brownback supports wind energy, but his political base includes free-market GOP conservatives who oppose such mandates.

Texas Comptroller Susan Combs released a report last week urging an end to state subsidies for wind power, saying that tax credits and property tax limits helped grow the industry but today give it an unfair advantage.

“It’s time,” Combs said, “for wind to stand on its own two feet.”

___

Low Frequency noise from Wind Turbines is Harmful!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage

New research published by the Royal Society warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise like that emitted by wind turbines

New research warns of the possible dangers posed by low frequency noise Photo: ALAMY

7:00AM BST 01 Oct 2014

Living close to wind farms may lead to severe hearing damage or even deafness, according to new research which warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise.

The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found.

The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby.

Published today by the Royal Society in their new journal Open Science, the research was carried out by a team of scientists from the University of Munich.

It relies on a study of 21 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 28 years. After being exposed to low frequency sound, scientists detected changes in the type of sound being emitted from the inner ear of 17 out of the 21 participants.

The changes were detected in a part of the ear called the cochlear, a spiral shaped cavity which essential for hearing and balance.

“We explored a very curious phenomenon of the human ear: the faint sounds which a healthy human ear constantly emits,” said Dr Marcus Drexl, one of the authors of the report.

“These are like a very faint constant whistling that comes out of your ear as a by-product of the hearing process. We used these as an indication of how processes in the inner ear change.”

Dr Drexl and his team measured these naturally emitted sounds before and after exposure to 90 seconds of low frequency sound.

“Usually the sound emitted from the ear stays at the same frequency,” he said. “But the interesting thing was that after exposure, these sounds changed very drastically.

“They started to oscillate slowly over a couple of minutes. This can be interpreted as a change of the mechanisms in the inner ear, produced by the low frequency sounds.

“This could be a first indication that damage might be done to the inner ear.

“We don’t know what happens if you are exposed for longer periods of time, [for example] if you live next to a wind turbine and listen to these sounds for months of years.”

Wind turbines emit a spectrum of frequencies of noise, which include the low frequency that was used in the research, Dr Drexl explained.

He said the study “might help to explain some of the symptoms that people who live near wind turbines report, such as sleep disturbance, hearing problems and high blood pressure”.

Dr Drexl explained how the low frequency noise is not perceived as being “intense or disturbing” simply because most of the time humans cannot hear it.

“The lower the frequency the you less you can hear it, and if it is very low you can’t hear it at all.

“People think if you can’t hear it then it is not a problem. But it is entering your inner ear even though it is not entering your consciousness.”

Wind Turbines are an Overpriced, Novelty Energy Form…..Not Suitable for Prime Time!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Fantasy of 100% Renewable Energy

By ALAN Y. WAYNE

Renewable energy is all the rage at the moment. Fears of global warming are ever present (and well-justified, I might add). Tax benefits for solar panels and wind turbines are at an all-time high. On Harvard’s campus, chants and rallies for divestment urge a shift away from fossil fuels toward renewables.

With Denmark’s wind power production exceeding its consumption on certain days last year, there have been calls for the United States to go completely fossil-free and become solely renewable-powered by 2050. After all, if Denmark can do it, why can’t we?

This is the point where I want to grab these 100-percent-renewable-promoting people and scream, “That’s not how it works! That’s not how any of this works!” (Oh, and Denmark isn’t entirely wind powered, that’s a misunderstanding—the true number is around 40 percent of electricity generation.)

Regardless of political pressure (which many have blamed for our lack of renewables), having a fully renewable-powered United States is physically impossible—and you can blame the sorry state of the U.S. energy grid.

Very few people know how the electricity is transmitted from, say, a wind turbine to their light bulb. We are lucky to live in a developed country where electricity can be taken for granted and blackouts are extraordinarily rare. This makes the electric grid appear to be a stable, ever-present figure that quietly and efficiently powers the country. In reality, the electric grid is less a perfectly fine-tuned blanket of distribution and more an ever-evolving patchwork quilt of relatively inefficient power lines.

There are two massive problems that currently plague the electric grid: We can’t store the electricity we produce, and we can’t transmit the electricity far from where it was generated.

There have been times when, in the Midwest on particularly windy days, there is so much energy generated by massive wind farms that there isn’t enough demand in the local area to use up all the electricity. When that happens, it would be fantastic if we could just put aside the excess electricity for another time when we need it. But we can’t. In fact, because there is absolutely no way to efficiently store this excess energy, the wind farm owners must sometimes pay money to offload their electricity.

Not being able to store it wouldn’t be an issue if we could just send all the excess electricity somewhere else though. After all, even if Wyoming’s five residents don’t need the energy at that moment, New York City is always hungry for more electricity. So what would happen if Wyoming’s wind farms generated the only energy available in the country, Wyoming had excess electricity, and a man in the Big Apple turned on his lights in an attempt to increase demand?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The light wouldn’t even go on. Due to the structure of our power grid, electricity cannot travel from Wyoming to New York.

In fact, the electric grid in the United States is actually three electric “interconnections”—the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection, and the Electrical Reliability Council of Texas. Electricity is hardly transferred between the interconnections—not out of choice, mind you. We physically cannot due to the difference between grid structures and a lack of infrastructure. And even within an interconnection, electricity struggles to travel distances of greater than 400 miles.

Now we return to the feasibility of a 100 percent renewable energy United States.

It’s true that if we covered just five percent of Arizona with solar photovoltaic panels, we would have more than enough energy to cover the four trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed annually in the United States. However, if we actually built this massive solar farm, the consequence wouldn’t be a green United States. It would just mean that the Southwest would have massively negative energy prices (assuming the grid in the area could even handle the load) while the rest of the United States would be in a perpetual blackout. No storage, and no long-distance or cross-interconnection transmission, remember? And what happens if it gets cloudy?

Wind power suffers from the same problems—even worse, actually, since wind is less predictable than the sun.

We’ve tapped all the hydropower sources in the country and it only accounts for seven percent of our nation’s electricity production.

Geothermal sites are unlikely to have a production capacity of more than 20 percent of total U.S. consumption (and are currently sitting at 0.41 percent).

Despite the environmental benefits, the fact simply remains that renewable energy—wind and solar in particular—is simply too volatile from minute to minute to produce the steady power we need. And we don’t yet have the storage or transmission technology to address these issues.

Sadly, for the time being, we will simply have to accept that the vast majority of our electricity must come from fossil fuel and nuclear plants.

Sorry, Earth.

Alan Y. Wayne ’16, a Crimson editorial writer, is an economics concentrator in Kirkland House.

Main Stream Media Refuses to Report the Truth About Climate Change.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Obvious Failures of Climate Science That Mainstream Media Ignores

/ September 30, 2014

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale –

The National Science Foundation press release Cause of California drought linked to climate change found its way into the mainstream media, with science reporters around the globe adding their hype. That press release is based on the recently published study Swain et al. (2014) “The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013/2014: Character, Context and the Role of Climate Change”, which can be found in the Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS report)Vol. 95, No. 9, September 2014, Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Perspective.

I’ll publish a few comments about Swain et al. (2014) in a few days. But this post is not about that paper.

THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT – WHO’S TO BLAME FOR THE LACK OF PREPAREDNESS?

As I was reading Anthony Watts excellent post about Swain et al. (2014), Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño, a number of reoccurring thoughts replayed, thoughts that have struck me numerous times as the Western States drought unfolded last year and intensified this year.

Was California prepared for a drought?

Obviously, California was not prepared for a drought this intense, and the impacts of that lack of preparedness on California residents will grow much worse if the drought continues.

Why wasn’t California prepared for a short-term (multiyear) drought this intense?

The realistic blame should be the focus of climate science in general under the direction of the IPCC. In the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant tounderstanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one. In efforts to justify agendas, politicians around the world jumped on the climate change stump and funded computer model-based studies of human-induced global warming…to the tune of billions of dollars annually.

Because of that political agenda, the latest and greatest climate models still cannot simulate the basic underlying processes that govern the naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes like ENSO (El Niños and La Niñas), like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation…processes that have strong influences on temperature and precipitation in west coast states. So there is no possible way climate models, as they exist today, could forecast what precipitation might be like in the future there. And that basic problem will persist until there is a redirection of climate-research funding. Yes, funding. Research follows the money.

What value do climate model-based studies provide?

None.

The paper Pierce et al. (2013) The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California provides an overview of why the climate models have no value when it comes to forecasts like California drought. In their abstract Pierce et al. write (my boldface and caps):

Of the 25 downscaled model projections examined here, 21 agree that precipitation frequency will DECREASE by the 2060s, with a mean reduction of 6–14 days yr−1. This reduces California’s mean annual precipitation by about 5.7%. Partly offsetting this, 16 of the 25 projections agree that daily precipitation intensity will INCREASE, which accounts for a model average 5.3% increase in annual precipitation. Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter.

[Hat tip to blogger “Jimbo” on the WUWT thread Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño.]

So some climate models say that daily precipitation intensity will increase and others say it will decrease. In other words, the climate science community is clueless about what the future might bring for west coast precipitation.

Some might say that climatologists for the State of California and other west coast states have been hampered by climate science. It’s tough to make recommendations to state and local governments for long-term planning when the climate science community provides them with nothing to work with.

Is California prepared for a drought that lasts multiple decades or even centuries?

Anthony Watts’s post included a graph from a paleoclimatological study of West Coast drought that showed past droughts have lasted for hundreds of years. For the original graph and discussion, see Figure 10 of Cook et al. (2007) North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. (Note: That’s not the John Cook from SkepticalScience.)

Now I hate to make you think about bad news. But if it’s happened in the past, can it happen again?

Why are mainstream media simply parroting press releases?

Climate-change news reports have become echo chambers of the press releases put out by colleges, universities and government research agencies. Individual reporters might provide a more in-depth report by asking the scientist-authors for a few extra word of wisdom.

But why aren’t the media asking the tough questions, like:

  • Why weren’t west-coast residents warned 10 or 15 years ago that a severe drought is just a weather anomaly away?
  • Why aren’t there enough desalinization plants in place to supplement rainfall deficits?
  • Why are the people of the west coast protesting for, and why are state governments funding, more wind farms and solar arrays when they need something more basic to maintain life there, water?

Seems to me we may very soon be seeing a reversal of Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, with vast flocks of California residents migrating back to the Midwest, which also is subject to periodic droughts.

Poor planning on the parts of a few—based on politically motivated, unsound science—may make for emergencies for millions.

Don’t Follow Germany’s Green Path…..They’re Lost! Epic Fail!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Germany’s Green Energy Failure

  • Date: 29/09/14
  • Doug L Hoffman, The Resilient Earth

The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe. The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so.

A new analysis answers the question “should other nations follow Germany’s lead on promoting solar Power?” That question was asked on Quora and answered by Ryan Carlyle, BSChE, and a Subsea Hydraulics Engineer. His detailed and well reasoned answer is the most forceful possible NO. According to Carlyle Germany’s program has the “absurd distinction” of hitting the trifecta of bad energy policy: bad for consumers, bad for industry, and bad for the environment. So while misguided greens point to Germany as a solar success, a rising tide of opposition and resentment is growing among the German public.

Along with all the other troubles besetting the world, Germany has watched its economy, the so called “engine of Europe,” stumble. This is mostly attributable to the horribly botched shift to a renewable energy economy. In Carlyle’s own words:

I was shocked to find out how useless, costly, and counter-productive their world-renowned energy policy has turned out. This is a serious problem for Germany, but an even greater problem for the rest of the world, who hope to follow in their footsteps. The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe! The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so. So I can forgive renewables advocates for not realizing it yet — but it’s time for the green movement to do a 180 on this.

Pretty strong stuff, but as good skeptics we should demand evidence to back up these statements. Fortunately, the author provides data to back up his claims. Here are some of Carlyle’s “awful statistics”:

Germany is widely considered the global leader in solar power, with over a third of the world’s nameplate (peak) solar power capacity. Germany has over twice as much solar capacity per capita as sunny, subsidy-rich, high-energy-cost California. (That doesn’t sound bad, but keep going.)

Germany’s residential electricity cost is about $0.34/kWh, one of the highest rates in the world. About $0.07/kWh goes directly to subsidizing renewables, which is actually higher than the wholesale electricity price in Europe. (This means they could simply buy zero-carbon power from France and Denmark for less than they spend to subsidize their own.) More than 300,000 households per year are seeing their electricity shut off because they cannot afford the bills. Many people are blaming high residential prices on business exemptions, but eliminating them would save households less than 1 euro per month on average. Billing rates are predicted by the government to rise another 40% by 2020.

Germany’s utilities and taxpayers are losing vast sums of money due to excessive feed-in tariffs and grid management problems. The environment minister says the cost will be one trillion euros (~$1.35 trillion) over the next two decades if the program is not radically scaled back. This doesn’t even include the hundreds of billions it has already cost to date. Siemens, a major supplier of renewable energy equipment, estimated in 2011 that the direct lifetime cost of Energiewende through 2050 will be $4.5 trillion, which means it will cost about 2.5% of Germany’s GDP for 50 years straight. That doesn’t include economic damage from high energy prices, which is difficult to quantify but appears to be significant.

Here’s the truly dismaying part: the latest numbers show Germany’s carbon output and global warming impact is actually increasing despite flat economic output and declining population, because of ill-planned “renewables first” market mechanisms. This regime is paradoxically forcing the growth of dirty coal power. Photovoltaic solar has a fundamental flaw for large-scale generation in the absence of electricity storage — it only works for about 5-10 hours a day. Electricity must be produced at the exact same time it’s used. The more daytime summer solar capacity Germany builds, the more coal power they need for nights and winters as cleaner power sources are forced offline. This happens because excessive daytime solar power production makes base-load nuclear plants impossible to operate, and makes load-following natural gas plants uneconomical to run. Large-scale PV solar power is unmanageable without equally-large-scale grid storage, but even pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are being driven out of business by the severe grid fluctuations. They can’t run steadily enough to operate at a profit. Coal is the only non-subsidized power source that doesn’t hemorrhage money now. The result is that utilities must choose between coal, blackouts, or bankruptcy. Which means much more pollution.

The emphasized passages are the author’s from the original posting.

Full post

– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-green-energy-failure/#sthash.fFTAlKrn.dpuf

Fighting an Imaginary Green Catastrophe, is costing us a Fortune!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Fight against climate change ‘may cause more harm than global warming’

Owen Paterson, who was sacked as environment secretary in David Cameron’s reshuffle, claimed that the fight against climate change did more harm than global warming
  • Owen Paterson
    Owen Paterson, who was sacked as environment secretary in David Cameron’s reshuffle, claimed that the fight against climate change did more harm than global warming Will Oliver/Getty Images
Matt Dathan
Published at 7:46PM, September 28 2014

Measures to combat climate change may be causing more damage than current global warming, a former environment secretary has said.

Owen Paterson, who was sacked in David Cameron’s reshuffle in July, attacked what he described as a “wicked green blob” of environmentalists for failing to explain the pause in global warming.

“There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years,” he told a fringe event at the Conservative party conference. “So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough