Article: European Renewable Energy performance for 2014 falls far short of claims

By 2014 European Union countries had invested approximately €1 trillion, €1000,000,000,000, in large scale Renewable Energy installations. 

This has provided a nameplate electrical generating capacity of about 216 Gigawatts, nominally about ~22% of the total European generation needs of about 1000 Gigawatts.
The actual measured output by 2014 from data supplied by the Renewables Industry has been 38 Gigawatts or 3.8% of Europe’s electricity requirement, at a capacity factor of ~18% overall.

Contrast that with coal or gas power plants that can operate at close to 100% capacity.

Accounting for capacity factors the capital cost of these Renewable Energy installations has been about €29billion / Gigawatt.  That capital cost should be compared with conventional gas-fired electricity generation costing about €1billion / Gigawatt.

Renewables cost 29X as much to install as gas-fired plants.

The wealthy elite are gaga over renewables, but they can afford to spend a lot more for energy. Back when Al Gore was pushing his "documentary" it was revealed that his primary residence used more electricity in one month that the average American used in one year.

In spite of their [ed., "there"] being virtually no costs for fuel, Renewable Energy installations can still cost up to 1.5 – 2.5 times as much to operate and maintain as conventional Gas Fired plant.

And the effect is to increase the cost of renewables even more.

Accordingly German Renewable installations perform at only ~13% overall.  They are by far the least performant in Europe because of their heavy commitment to Solar Energy at Northern latitudes.  Germany is followed by Italy with a more Southerly position but still with a heavy commitment to Solar Power.

Low solar incidence angle and short days for 6 months of the year. Berlin, Germany is 52 degrees North. Northernmost Maine is 47 degrees North. How did any rational person think that solar energy was a good choice for Germany?

In France which already has the lowest CO2 emissions levels/head [ed., per capita] of population in the developed world (substantially less (~60%) than China) because of its commitment to Nuclear electrical generation, the installation of Renewable Energy (Wind Power and Solar) in France would seem to be particularly costly and pointless.

If governments want low CO2 emissions, they should go with nuclear.

If they want to kill poor people in the winter, so with renewables.

Conclusions 

To date about € trillion, (€1000,000,000,000), has been spent on the installation of Renewable Energy technologies for electricity generation in Europe.

By Government and EU diktat, this expenditure has been extracted by extra charges imposed on utility bills throughout Europe.  Viewed as taxation this is very regressive form:  it imposes more burdens on poorer people whilst leaving wealthier people who are able to pay less affected.  It is also invisible in Government accounts as a tax income at all, as it is an industry price imposition on consumers.

These regressive “Green taxes” have already lead to significant fuel poverty throughout Europe.

As I said, if they want to kill poor people in the winter, go with renewables.

The USA has made significant CO2 emissions reductions over the past few decades by replacing Coal Fired generation with Gas Fired electricity generation with the feedstock provided by the fracking revolution.  It is estimated that using natural gas for electricity generation as opposed coal burning saves about 30% of CO2 emissions.  

So the most environmentally sound, logical, rational, scientific, economic, compassionate choices are
1) Natural gas (and fracking).
2) Nuclear.

On the other hand renewables are the best choice for the elite because they offer
1) Smug moral superiority
2) Good opportunities for cronyism and graft.

It is also questionable whether these Renewable Energy industries, when viewed “from cradle to grave”, including manufacturing, site works, installation, connection and demolition costs, does in fact reduce CO2 emissions to any significant extent overall.  The CO2 saved may never exceed the CO2 emissions generated to erect the total installation.  

This is like the ethanol boondoggle in the US. Use lots of land and fossil fuels to grow and harvest corn, then lots of fossil fuels convert the corn to alcohol and purify it. Then claim that you are reducing CO2 emissions by using a "biofuel" from a renewable resource. All the while by driving up food (and fuel) costs by diverting corn (and land) from being a feedstock.

Article: Coal No Longer US's Most Popular Electricity Source For First Time Ever

For the first time ever, coal has been unseated as America’s largest source of fuel to generate electricity. As of April 2015, natural gas is now number 1. 

A report from SNL Energy shows that 31 percent of America’s electricity was now coming from natural gas. That’s up from just 22 percent in 2010. But even though natural gas has taken the lead, coal is still a formidable force, fulfilling 30 percent of the nation’s electrical energy needs.

 Fracking has increased the supply of natural gas, and (economics 101) driven down the price of it. In addition, EPA regulations (recently set aside by the Supreme Court) made coal less attractive.

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

Article: Global natural gas boom alone won't slow climate change

But it also will not make it any worse.

Every silver lining needs a cloud.

Because natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, many people hoped the recent natural gas boom could help slow climate change -- and according to government analyses, natural gas did contribute partially to a decline in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 2007 and 2012. 

This is the silver lining.

If Obama's EPA gets its way, it will gradually regulate coal-fueled power plants out of existence. In theory, the trend will continue, for the US, until we no longer use coal to generate electricity.

Now for the cloud.

But, in the long run, according to this study, a global abundance of inexpensive natural gas would compete with all energy sources -- not just higher-emitting coal, but also lower-emitting nuclear and renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar. 

This is a "free-market" working normally. People want the cheapest energy, power companies in the US and governments of poor countries will do their best to supply it.

Inexpensive natural gas would also accelerate economic growth and expand overall energy use.

This is considered to be a negative effect of the switch to fracking and natural gas.

[Sarcasm alert: Economic growth, pulling people out of poverty, developing the full human potential in all countries of the world is a bad thing. It must be stopped by right-thinking people. Fracking must be opposed!]

Five groups of scientists ran their own computer models (called "integrated assessment models") in an attempt to see whether or not swapping coal for methane made any difference to overall global warming.

They found that it did not.

What I wonder about the research is something that they did not report on. Was the effect of the switch so small that it is actually negligible? Even before figuring in all the effects?

Or, putting it another way, before they threw in a bunch of other factors, what was the actual effect on global warming of making the switch?

It sounds as if there must be some effect, but it is not mentioned.

One of the big complaints about the Australian carbon pricing scheme was that the effect of it would be well below a 0.01% reduction in global warming over a 50 year period.

[The research shows that] the global energy system could experience unprecedented changes in the growth of natural gas production and significant changes to the types of energy used, but without much reduction to projected climate change… 

"Abundant gas may have a lot of benefits -- economic growth, local air pollution, energy security, and so on. There's been some hope that slowing climate change could also be one of its benefits, but that turns out not to be the case," said McJeon.

So the overall effect would be beneficial.

Article: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

A FUSION reactor, possibly inside of a decade. This is big news.

Hidden away in the secret depths of the Skunk Works, a Lockheed Martin research team has been working quietly on a nuclear energy concept they believe has the potential to meet, if not eventually decrease, the world’s insatiable demand for power. 

Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations.

Long article. With some details, history, alternate attempts to get a working fusion reactor, etc.

I have read some articles on small, safe fission reactors being in development, but these might leap frog over them.

Anyone interested in actually reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere should be thrilled by this. However, I expect the usual left-wing environmentalists to freak out.

Article: Keystone Be Darned: Canada Finds Oil Route Around Obama

Long article on how Canadians have responded to American dithering about the Keystone pipeline.

The article describes the situation and a proposed solution: using existing rights-of-way to build a pipeline from the oil sands in northern Alberta to the Saint Lawrence Seaway (about 2900 miles).  It describes the people involved. I am impressed by the number of people willing to risk large amounts of their own money to bring this about.

It would take to 2016 to get the project approved. And 2018 to get it built. And it would cost $11 billion (American).

Solar plants are a menace to birds

Article:  'Streamers': California solar power plant scorches birds in mid-air

Article: Dead-Bird ‘Streamers’ at a California Solar Plant

Article: Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Article: Migratory Bird Mortality: Many Human-Caused Threats Afflict our Bird Populations

California’s massive Ivanpah solar power plant can produce enough electricity for 140,000 households — but the environmental cost is nothing less than an avian slaughter.

The plant’s 350,000 mirrors bounce sizzling sunlight to the tops of three 40-story boiler towers, heating steam for turbine electricity generators. Temperatures near the towers can reach up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, heat certainly sufficient to fry a fowl.

“Workers at the state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — ‘steamers,’ for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair,” the Associated Press reports this week.

That’s a common occurrence, the AP continues; federal investigators saw a bird burn roughly every two minutes. Ivanpah owner BrightSource estimates that “about a thousand” die each year, and one environmental group says the plant kills up to 28,000 birds each year.

How many dead birds equal the damage caused by the CO2 emissions that these power plants replaced?

Please don't get me wrong. I think that the technology is cool. I think that, in the medium run, it is good to diversify our energy sources away from fossil fuels.

However, all sources of energy have their pros and cons.

Among the "cons" for this type of solar energy are scorched birds.

The dead birds are consequence of global warming activism. No activism, no push for alternatives to fossil fuels, no dead birds in ecologically sensitive areas. It is a trade-off.

But is it a worse trade-off than fossil fuels producing CO2? 

Another "con" are billion dollar loans to cronies of the Obama administration.

The commission is now considering the application from Oakland-based BrightSource to build a mirror field and a 75-story power tower that would reach above the sand dunes and creek washes between Joshua Tree National Park and the California-Arizona border.

The proposed plant is on a flight path for birds between the Colorado River and California's largest lake, the Salton Sea — an area, experts say, is richer in avian life than the Ivanpah plant, with protected golden eagles and peregrine falcons and more than 100 other species of birds recorded there.

The down side of wind turbines are also well known:  

Ivanpah isn’t the only green darling with a lot of bird blood on its hands, either. The American Bird Conservancy estimates wind turbines slay 440,000 birds each year, and the an analyst writing in the Wildlife Society Bulletin says it’s closer to 573,000 — in addition to 888,000 bats.

Again, a trade-off.

Again, how many dead birds and bats equal the damage caused by the CO2 these power plants replaced?

Science Links, 8/9/14.

Let's clear the tabs and post some links.

Pot and teens, nuclear energy, brain-mimicking chips, animals are sentient(?), and a vaccine study withdrawn.

Article: Pot studies suggest regular use is bad for teen brains

A close look at the under-25 age group shows cognitive decline, poor attention and memory and decreased IQ among those who regularly smoke pot, defined as at least once a week, says Krista Lisdahl, director of the brain-imaging and neuropsychology lab at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

"The adolescent period is a sensitive period of neurodevelopment," she says.

Overall, marijuana use begins in the later teens, around age 16 or 17, peaks in the early 20s and drops off between ages 23 and 25, says Lisdahl.

"Is it a coincidence that use significantly goes down at 25 when the brain is at its full maturation? I don't think so," she says.

Colloquially, this has been know for years. "Why do think that call it 'dope'?" was often used on anti-drug posters for years.

The fact that it hits young people hardest is not a surprise either. Brains begin developing in the womb and do not complete development until adulthood.

There is a lovely piece of circular reasoning exposed in the article. Areas of Montana that voted for the legalization of pot were also the areas with the highest usage of pot. The reasoning?

"People don't perceive it as a very harmful substance, and these community norms translate to teens," she says. "From the teen study, they do reference legalization: 'If it was that bad a drug, they wouldn't be trying to legalize it.' "

Older studies on the effects of pot may be invalid because the levels of the active ingredient is much higher today that it was in past.

Article: Obama’s Energy Guru on America’s Nuclear Future

Interview with Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

Discussion of small, modular nuclear plants. Also energy use efficiency, gas, oil, coal, wind and solar. No mention of how much the latter two are directly subsidized.

Article: Brain-inspired chip fits 1m [million] 'neurons' on postage stamp

Each "neuron" is attached to 256 others (in human brains, each neuron is attached to 10,000 each).

Traditional programming will not work, so new programming will have to be done.

These chips, and ones like them, are being used for visual recognition. This is something the brain does very well, but traditional computers do poorly.

Article: Quebec to amend Civil Code to better protect animals from abuse

Once the Civil Code is amended, cats, dogs and other animals will no longer be considered as "personal property" but as living, "sentient" creatures. That is a formula that has already been adopted by several European countries.

Sentient: able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste. Aware.

No one would argue that animals are able to "fee, see, hear, smell, or taste." However, are animals actually "aware?" So what is the definition of sentient in the legislation?

While recognizing the sentient nature of an animal will not give it the same type of rights as for humans, it will increase the obligations on owners and breeders toward their charges.

Paradis noted that there is a demand for better treatment of animals and it has already been heard in Europe.

"We're seeing how things are evolving in Europe on agricultural farms — there are larger cages for pigs and more space for chickens. If you're not part of this movement, you're going to be excluded."

"We're telling people, 'you can no longer treat animals as inert, property with no emotions,'" she said. "This will force people to be aware, it will force the courts to act. There will be change, that's for sure."

This is not just about pets, this legislation will also cover livestock animals. 

Once the Civil Code has been updated, "Quebec judges will have no choice, in my opinion, to be a bit more coercive," she said.

"Coercive." A nice reminder that government is, by nature, coercive.

Article: Scientists retract narcolepsy study linked to GSK vaccine

...the journal said the researchers, led by Emmanuel Mignot, a professor of psychiatry and behavioural sciences at Stanford University, had asked that the paper be retracted "because they were unable to replicate some of the results reported in the paper".

Research needs to be able to be replicated in order to be considered valid by scientists.

Yet, another study linking a vaccine with a brain disorder that was shown to be invalid.

Why Conservatives distrust the "climage change" agenda. [updated, below]

Three articles showing why conservatives distrust "global warming" and "climate change."

Added: Why do multimillionaire and billionaire leftists routinely advocate policies detrimental to the poor? 

Article: IMF urges higher energy taxes to fight climate change

When you tax something, two things happen.
1) When you tax something, you get less of it (partly because the price goes up). The IMF wants to decrease the use of fossil fuel, so driving up the price of it is a feature, not a bug.
2) When the price goes up, the poor can afford less of it. But what do wealthy lawyers and politicians like the managing director of the IMF care? They are more interested in power.

International Monetary Fund: 

The IMF's stated goal was to assist in the reconstruction of the world's international payment system post–World War II. Countries contribute funds to a pool through a quota system from which countries with payment imbalances temporarily can borrow money and other resources.

The IMF is a self-described "organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.”

Mission Creep

Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs. The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields.

The IMF was chartered to help with nations deal with trade imbalance. The IMF "creeped," moved into "reducing poverty" and now into climate change.

Energy taxes in much of the world are far below what they should be to reflect the harmful environmental and health impact of fossil fuels use, the International Monetary Fund said in a new book on Thursday.

Why is this their business?

For the first time, the IMF laid out exactly what it views as appropriate taxes on coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel in 156 countries to factor in the fuels' overall costs, which include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion and traffic accidents.

And, again, why is this their business?

And IMF has "creeped" into reducing traffic accidents?

The IMF is notorious for its strong-arm tactics. A country needing IMF's help will be told how to restructure its economy and government policy. And it does not care how much the people of the country suffer in the process.

This is why conservatives distrust "climate change." Climate change is now being used by the IMF as a cudgel to pursue political ends.

"On this point, let me be crystal clear: we are generally talking about smarter taxes rather than higher taxes," [Christine Madeleine Odette] Lagarde [Managing Director of the IMF] said, according to prepared remarks for the launch of the book.

She said higher energy taxes are the most efficient and simple way of dealing with environmental harm and would allow governments to stop relying on a "patchwork" of other uncoordinated policies to deal with climate change, such as subsidies for renewable energy.

Higher energy prices would prompt people to shift to cleaner fuels or more fuel-efficient vehicles on their own, Lagarde said, adding that they could also allow governments to lower other taxes on consumption or income to reduce the burden on people, or pay down more public debt.

This is amazing levels of nonsense. Governments rarely reduce taxes. Subsidies, once in place, have a vocal constituency to maintain the subsidy. [During WWII, mohair was needed for soldier's uniforms. A subsidy was instituted to make certain there was a steady supply. Mohair has not been needed since 1960, but the subsidy continues.]

"Higher energy prices would prompt..." No, not "prompt." Coerice, maybe. Drive? Force?

The IMF estimates implementing efficient energy taxes would reduce deaths from fossil fuels by 63 percent, cut carbon emissions by 23 percent, and raise revenues by 2.6 percent of GDP for the world as a whole.

Sheer speculation. First off, reducing carbon emissions means less energy use (unless we convert quickly to a lot more nuclear power).

The idea is to drive up the price of energy to the level that solar, wind, and new water sources become commercially viable. What this says is that these forms are currently nonviable unless governments force people to use them.

Why is this not considered to be totalitarian?


Article: Senate report details how EPA officials divert millions of tax dollars to activist groups

Here are just four of the conclusions described in the report's executive summary regarding government funding of environmental nonprofits:

• Former far-left environmentalists working at EPA funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues, often contributing to the bottom line of environmental activist groups.

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

• EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck appears to be inappropriately and personally involved in the allocation of EPA grants to favored groups. Enck is also the subject of an inquiry led by the EPA Office of Inspector General.

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

Natural Resources Defense Council

The organization states that it seeks sustainable policies from federal, state and local government and industrial corporations. It seeks to influence federal and state environmental and other agencies, the Congress and state legislatures, and the courts to reduce global warming, limit pollution, and generally conserve energy and increase sustainability of commerce and manufacturing. NRDC participates in litigation in federal and state courts to influence implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other federal and state laws protecting the environment.

So, the EPA gives NRDC money, which then uses the money to sue the EPA. When sued, the EPA is known to enter into an agreement, "losing" the case in favor of those bring the suit; that is, the activist organization. This allows the EPA to advance an "activist" agenda that may be contrary to the law. However, the EPA can still pretend they were "forced" to do it by judges.

This is called "lawfare."

Some have argued that "lawfare" be defined as an exclusively negative term. The Lawfare Project is one such organization, defining lawfare as "the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends."

The two articles, as I said above, are evidence why conservatives distrust "global warming." Activists push a "global warming" agenda (increased taxes, increased government regulation, mission creep).

Ultimately, global warming looks like a stalking horse for advocates for a larger and more encompassing state.

Article: Leaked Memo Gives Away Dems’ ‘Extreme Weather’ Talking Points

The memo uses common, and widely debunked, tropes such as global warming causes more extreme weather: droughts, hurricanes (Kartrina! Sandy!), wildfires, crop failures. The IPCC reports, the gold standard for climate change activism, reject these claims. Why are still being made?

Another trope that is used: higher insurance payouts for disasters. This has been repeatedly shown to be due to 1) more people living in disaster-prone areas (and, yes, that includes downtown Manhattan) and inflation.

Memo [linked in above article]: Senate Budget Committee caucus memo on federal budget impacts of climate change

On page 4 of the memo, 4 references were to the "Risky Business Project." It is bankrolled by three people. I immediately recognized 2 of the names: left-wing billionaires well known for using their wealth to influence elections.

So billionaire activists bankroll a study that Democrats use as talking points.

The activist left uses bogus science to allow the creation of talking points for Democrats wishing to scare people into supporting the Democrats and their agenda.

Why does anyone wonder conservatives distrust "global warming" and "climate change?"

Notes on Kartina and Sandy:
1) Katrina was a category 1 hurricane by the time the edge of it hit New Orleans. The worst of the flooding was due to a faulty dike that gave way. The dike was faulty because it was not build as the US Corps of Engineers had designed. The construction company, that got the bid due to connections with a corrupt Democrat Party machine, used sub-standard materials. In other words, the New Orleans disaster was at least partly due to political corruption. Additionally, many of the deaths in New Orleans were directly related to the incompetence of the mayor and the governor. (Both democrats; the mayor is now in jail and the governor was voted out of office.)

2) Sandy was not a hurricane when it hit NYC (despite the claim in the memo). It was already designated an "extra-tropical storm." NYC was hit by four hurricanes (or remnants) in a 10 year period in the 1940's and 1950's. In other words, NYC has been a frequent target. It could have been better prepared. And events like Sandy happened BEFORE global warming really took off.

Updates
Article: W.Va. coal company says EPA regs partially to blame for 1.1K layoffs

In the Democrat Senators' talking point memo, they talk about how much they are in favor of economic growth. Policies that they have encouraged and support say otherwise. This is merely one of several such articles that I have seen.

Article:  Cecil Roberts, Other UMWA Board Members Arrested in Pittsburgh 

Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers of America, and other board members of the UMWA were arrested Thursday in Pittsburgh. They're there to protest the EPA ruling regarding new carbon emission regulations for coal fired power plants.

Democrats used to the party for the oppressed and for unions. Now they are party for billionaires and environmentalists. 

Article: Billionaire climate-change supporter pledges to spend big to beat Florida Gov. Rick Scott

Alternate title: Billionaire Democrat Party supporter pledges to spend big in Republican Governor of Florida: Global warming mentioned in campaign ads.

One of the billionaires behind the "Risky Business Project" is Steve Heyer. Here, he is pouring up to $10,000,000 into the Florida race. The principal beneficiary is the Democrat candidate (and former Republican governor and former independent candidate for senator), Charlie Crist. Former Gov. Crist has been all over the place with regard to climate change. He is also known to blatantly and openly change positions based on the way the wind is blowing and which party he is currently a member of. 

On the other hand, the Republican candidate has not taken any position on global warming, per se; but who has deconstructed Gov. Crist's "cap and trade" program.

Steve Heyer spent $75,000,000 in the 2010 election. He has been know to spend $11,000,000 to buy influence in a single race. 

US energy boom

Article: There's A U.S. Energy Boom, No Thanks To Obama

Alternative title: US energy boom, doomsayers and environmentalists hardest hit. 

Much good news. And increasing oil/natural gas means lower prices for consumers, which helps the poorest among us.

Facts:

1) [A ]...35% increase in America's oil and natural gas production since President Obama took office.
2) Since Obama took office, oil and gas production... on federal lands has dropped sharply due to a cutback in leasing of deepwater areas for energy development.
3) U.S. dependence on imported petroleum products has fallen from more than 60% in 2005 to less than 33% in 2013. It's expected to drop to 22% in 2015....
4) U.S. natural gas production has been an equally remarkable success story. The shale-gas revolution has transformed the U.S. into the world's No. 1 gas producer.