Climate Hustle demolishes climate alarmism

image002

Be sure to see this movie Monday, May 2 – during its one-night nationwide engagement

Without presenting it to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution, President Obama has signed the Paris climate treaty. He is already using it to further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth … control our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties … and redistribute our wealth. Poor, minority and working class families will suffer most.

China, India and other developing economies are under no such obligation, unless and until it is in their interest to do so. For them, compliance is voluntary – and they cannot afford to eliminate the fossil fuels that supply 85% of all global energy, generate some 90% of developing nations’ electricity, and will lift billions of people out of abject poverty. That’s why these countries have built over 1,000 coal-fired power plants and are planning to build 2,300 more – while unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are shutting down US coal-fired generators, and getting ready to block natural gas production and use.

What if the entire foundation for this energy and economic insanity were erroneous, groundless, fabricated … a climate con job – a Climate Hustle?

That is exactly what CFACT’s new movie demonstrates is actually going on.

Climate Hustle is the perfect antidote to the destructive, demoralizing climate alarmism that dominates political decisions and obsesses the Obama White House and EPA. You owe it to yourself to see it.

It’s coming to a theater near you on Monday, May 2, for a special one-night engagement.

I saw Climate Hustle April 14, at its U.S. premiere on Capitol Hill in Washington. The film is informative and entertaining, pointed and humorous. As meteorologist Anthony Watts says, it is wickedly effective in its using slapstick humor and the words and deeds of climate alarmists to make you laugh at them.

It examines the science on both sides of the issue … presents often hilarious planetary Armageddon prophecies of Al Gore, Leonard Nimoy and otherdoomsayers … and lets 30 scientists and other experts expose the climate scares and scams, explain Real World climate science, and delve deeply into the politics and media hype that have surrounded this issue since it was first concocted several decades ago

Sizzling temperatures. Melting ice caps. Destructive hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts. Disappearing polar bears. The end of civilization as we know it! The end of Planet Earth!

Emissions from our power plants, cars, factories and farms are causing catastrophic climate change!

Or are they? Is there really a “97% scientific consensus” on this? Or is “dangerous manmade climate change” merely the greatest overheated environmentalist con-job and shell game ever devised to advance the Big Green anti-energy agenda?

See this amazing film on May 2, and find out for yourself. To learn where it’s showing near you, and to buy tickets, visit www.ClimateHustle.com

You’ll be glad you did.

Climate Hustle is hosted by award-winning investigative journalist Marc Morano.  A former communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Morano is publisher of CFACT’s ClimateDepot.com. The film is a production of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDR Communications. See the movie. Bring your friends. Make it a party. www.ClimateHustle.com

Paul Driessen

 

The Unstoppable CO2-Induced Greening of the Earth Continues

CO2 Science

Paper Reviewed
Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R.B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Arneth, A., Cao, C., Cheng, L., Kato, E., Koven, C., Li, Y., Lian, X., Liu, Y., Liu, R., Mao, J., Pan, Y., Peng, S., Penuelas, J., Poulter, B., Pugh, T.A.M., Stocker, B.D., Viovy, N., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Xiao, Z., Yang, H., Zaehle, S. and Zeng, N. 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3004.

Among the many climate-alarmist fears of CO2-induced global warming is the concern that the productivity of the biosphere will decline if global temperatures rise to the extent predicted by computer models. Yet, for many alarmists, the future is the present. Since 1980, for example, the Earth has weathered three of the warmest decades in the instrumental temperature record, a handful of intense and persistent El Niño events, large-scale deforestation, “unprecedented” forest fires, and the eruption of several volcanoes. Concurrently, the air’s CO2 content increased by 16%, while human population grew by 55%. So just how bad is the biosphere suffering in response to these much-feared events? Or, is it even suffering at all? A new paper by Zhu et al. (2016) provides valuable insight into this important topic.

Noting that global environment change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, Zhu et al. set about to discover just how significant this phenomenon is, as well as what has primarily been responsible for it. This they did using three long-term satellite-derived leaf area index (LAI) records, together with the output of ten global ecosystem models, which they employed to study four key drivers of LAI trends (atmospheric CO2 enrichment, nitrogen deposition, climate change and land cover change) over the period 1982-2009. And what did this effort reveal?

The 32 researchers — representing 9 different countries (Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom) — report finding “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).” And equally importantly, they report that “factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (4%).”

Could one hope for anything more promising than this? Quite the opposite of what the world’s climate alarmists contend should be happening to Earth’s vegetation, rising atmospheric CO2 enrichment is proving to be a tremendous biospheric benefit, overpowering the many real and negative influences that society and nature have inflicted upon it over the past three decades, as shown in the figure below.


Figure 1. Spatial pattern of relative change of LAI due to CO2 fertilization during 1982 to 2009. The relative change of LAI in each pixel is derived from the ratio of the increment of LAI driven by elevated atmospheric CO2 to the 28-year average value of LAI simulated by model ensemble mean under scenario S1. Source: Figure S12, supplementary information from Zhu et al. (2016)

 

On Earth Day we should Celebrate The True Green Fuels

Hydrocarbons and Nuclear.

Statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today urged people to celebrate the true green fuels – oil, coal, gas, nuclear and, in places, geothermal and hydro.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that these fuels have reduced man’s pressure on the environment to such an extent that they should be celebrated on “Earth Day”.

Direct Quotes that may be used:

It was petroleum that provided the kerosene that replaced whale oil in lamps and greatly reduced the slaughter of whales.

Coal saved the forests that were being cut down for smelters, forges, charcoal, heaters and stoves. Steel made with coke then replaced wood for mine props, bridges and tall buildings. As steam engines and iron ships replaced wooden wind-jammers in world navies and merchant fleets, the forests expanded.

Coal gas and clean coal cured the smogs of London and Pittsburgh. Piped gas for home heating and street lighting and the even better “clean-coal-by-wire” (coal powered electricity) worked wonders to reduce air pollution in “The Big Smoke”.

Petrol driven cars and trucks removed horse manure from the big cities, and tractors reduced the amount of land required to grow food for those cities.

Nuclear power is the ultimate “green energy” – enormous amounts of clean energy generated on a tiny footprint, by minute quantities of fuel, with little effect on air or water quality. Its only disadvantage is that, unlike coal and gas, it does not recycle the gases of life to the atmosphere.

Naturally there are risks in every human endeavour but modern energy sources kill far fewer people and wildlife than were once lost in timber getting, horse breaking, wind-jammers, sulky capsize, air pollution and city wildfires. And to believe that man can tweak the climate with carbon taxes is non-sense.

In contrast, the so called “green energy” sources usually lauded on Earth Day have a heavy toll on the environment to produce piddling amounts of unreliable and costly energy.

Both wind and solar energy are so dilute that large areas of land must be sterilised by roads, transmission lines and construction sites to collect significant energy. Already many wind towers have been abandoned and others are being de-commissioned because of high maintenance costs or poor energy production.

Roof-top solar is a joke as a reliable supplier of energy for most of humanity. In most installations of wind and solar power, the facilities would not be built without subsidies and other political props, and it is doubtful that the green-power turbines and panels will generate enough useful energy over their limited life to recover the energy needed for their raw materials, manufacture, construction, roads, power lines, earth works, maintenance and decommissioning.

Green energy is not environmentally friendly.

Where big wind/solar facilities are constructed, many native birds and bats are sliced by whirling swords, or singed and fried by concentrated solar heat rays. Blinded by their obsession with blaming fossil fuels for everything, greens pretend that this unnecessary slaughter of wildlife is not occurring.

Without carbon and nuclear fuels, Earth would be raped for fuel and food by destitute people trying to eke out a living without the greatest boon to modern living – cheap reliable energy. As Alex Epstein, from the Centre for Industrial Progress says eloquently, “fossil fuels are the greenest energy”.

“Despite what most environmentalists would have us believe, fossil fuels have made our lives more livable, not less. Thanks to coal, oil, and natural gas, the developed world has routine access to clean water, better sanitation, and yes, cleaner air. Watch the video here and find out how, rather than destroying the planet, this miracle energy source is actually saving lives.

Reference:

Clearing the smog:

http://carbon-sense.com/2008/08/04/clearing-the-smog/#more-25

Viv Forbes,
Chairman the Carbon Sense Coalition
www.carbon-sense.com

Don’t Believe ‘Hottest-Year’ Hype

By Larry Bell | Monday, 14 Mar 2016 07:51 AM

NOAA and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have histories of tweaking global data and abbreviating recorded timelines to make the past colder in order to have recent temperatures appear remarkably warmer.

In January they rolled out a “hottest year ever” press briefing to report an allegedly dramatic warming trend purportedly based upon 57 years of radiosonde (balloon) records. Strangely, their presentation graph only showed the last 37 years dating back to 1979. Data going back another 22 years to 1957 would have revealed a very different trend line.

As reported by Real Science, radiosonde recordings in the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s. And whereas NOAA’s surface station records indicate about one degree of warming between 1979 and 2010, far more accurate radiosonde and satellite measurements show little warming.

Global temperatures cooled from the late 1950s to the ’60s, and have since risen and fallen with as much pre-1979 cooling as post-1979 warming over the past half century.

Satellite records which date back only to 1979 show that 1998, a major El Niño year, was far warmer than 2015, which experienced an even stronger El Niño that had been expected to influence at least equally high temperatures.

In fact even the year 2010 (which was followed by four years of cooling) was warmer.

Those 18 years after 1998 were relatively flat until last year despite much ballyhooed “record high” atmospheric CO2 levels. The 2015 El Niño is now rapidly dissipating, likely to be soon followed by a cooling La Niña.

Alabama’s State Climatologist and University of Alabama Earth Science Center Director John Christy explained reasons for temperature recording conflicts and uncertainties to the House Science Committee last month.

He emphasized that satellite and radiosonde measurements, which tend to be quite consistent with one another, afford much more accurate and coherent gauges of global temperatures than surface networks.

Christy observed that significant land-based temperature contamination errors result from local “heat island effects” caused by urban developments and careless placement of recording instruments near heat sources such as structures and air conditioner exhausts.

Ocean surface measurements are also unreliable. He pointed out that water temperature trends at a depth of 1 meter “do not track well with those of air temperature just above the water [3 meters], even when both are measured on the same buoy over 20 years.” With regard to determining any human CO2 influences, “it is difficult to adjust for these contaminating factors to extract a pure data set for greenhouse detection because often the non-climatic influence comes along very gradually just as it is expected of the response to the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

As for theoretical computer models which project sharply climbing temperatures, actual atmospheric measurements have shown no such trend whatsoever.

Christy told the House Committee that “The models overwarm the atmosphere by a factor of about 2.5, indicating that the current [greenhouse] theory is at odds with the facts.” This discrepancy “is not a short-term specially-selected episode, but represents the past 37 years.” He reminded the audience that “This is also the period with the highest concentration of greenhouse gases, and thus, the period in which the response should be of the largest magnitude.”

Many will remember a previous “climate crisis” media scare in the 1960s and late ’70s when “leading scientists” were predicting an arrival of the next ice age.

Since 2011, NOAA has creatively revised that original temperature record to make that big chill go away altogether. They aren’t alone in cooking the books. NASA’s GISS, a small surface temperature modeling shop operating out of a midtown Manhattan office building has become a leading player in the political agenda-driven climate scare business.

The next time you hear a feverish declaration that the most recent day, month, year or decade is “the hottest on record,” perhaps consider “since when?” Are they referring to the brief period since satellites first provided the most reliable data? Do they mean since the time a spotty and haphazard global network of mercury thermometer surface stations was established in the late 1800s?

In any case, don’t expect alarmists to cite evidence taken from proxy records including ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica indicating that temperatures were warmer over most of the past 10,000 years . . . or that agricultural records show the climate was as warm or warmer 2,000 years ago during the Roman warm period and again 1,000 years ago during the Medieval warm period.

Also, don’t anticipate any mention that our planet is still warming its way out of the “little ice age” which lasted from about 1300 to 1850. Periods before the Industrial Revolution brought CO2-belching smokestacks and SUVs somehow don’t seem to count.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom”(2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012). 

 

Germany’s Wind Power Meltdown

Posted: March 28, 2016 by tallbloke in Energy, government, greenblob, Incompetence, solar system dynamics, wind

turbine-failRepost from Stop These Things

The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance.

The subsidies have been colossal and the impacts on the electricity market chaotic.

Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. Power starved Germans, instead of freezing, grabbed their axes and tramped into their forests to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).

German manufacturers – and other energy intensive industries – faced with escalating power bills are packing up and heading to the USA – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here and hereand here). And the “green” dream of creating thousands of jobs in the wind industry has turned out to be just that: a dream (see our post here).

Those in charge of Germany’s power grid have stepped up calls for an end to the lunacy of trying to absorb a wholly weather dependent generation source into what was never designed to deal with the chaos presented on a daily basis:

Germany’s Wind Power Debacle Escalates: Nation’s Grid on the Brink of Collapse

The economics are so bizarre, that you’d think its “Energiewende” policy had been put together by the GDR’s ‘brains trust’, before the Berlin Wall took its tumble in 1989.

In Germany, around €100 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.

Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar? The answer – at a piddling 3.3% – is: NOT MUCH.

For Germans, that would all be miserable enough, except that – contrary to the purported environmental purpose of their Energiewende – CO2 emissions are rising, not falling as promised and predicted.

If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.

Explaining The Extreme Weather Events That Did Not Happen

MARCH 17, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

image_thumb67

https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

Unable to persuade the public that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing, the climate establishment has turned to peddling the myth that global warming is leading to more extreme weather.

There have been a number of studies which have attempted to connect the two. Even then, as I showed with the above AMS attempt a few months ago, most extreme events cannot be linked, and those that are claimed to be are extremely tenuous.

Of course, weather is an impossibly complex affair, and it is inevitable that some weather events may be made more likely or more intense in a warmer world. But, equally, the opposite is also true – that some events are less likely. Naturally, we never hear the absence of extreme weather analysed in this way by the likes of the AMS or Met Office.

So, I invite them to have a go at these examples:

Hurricanes

US land falling hurricanes have been at record low levels in recent years, and it is now more than ten years since a major hurricane hit.

image

image

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

Tornadoes

There has been a long term decline in both the number of tornadoes, and particularly, the frequency of stronger ones.

image_thumb54

image_thumb55

Droughts

Droughts were much more commonplace, prolonged and severe prior to the 1970s.

mudltigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/pdsi/ytd/12/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Summer Heatwaves

There has been a marked absence of extreme heatwaves in recent years, and nothing approaches the run of intensely hot summers in the 1930s.

mulstigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmax/3/8/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Bitter Winters

According to NOAA’s albeit highly adjusted data, extremely cold winters are a thing of the past in the US.

multigramph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmin/3/2/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Precipitation

As with drought indicators, US rainfall has tended to be greater since the pre 1970 period.

There is no indication, however, of precipitation becoming more extreme since then. The wettest year was 1973.

multigrapph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/pcp/ytd/12/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Regional Precipitation Extremes

National totals can, of course, cover up regional imbalances.The NOAA chart below shows the balance of extremely wet and dry areas. As with PDSI, very dry areas are much less common, while the area of very wet weather is stable.

(NOAA’s graph is not well presented; although it says “December”, it is in fact for all months since 1895. Each bar represents a single month)

multigraph

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/uspa/?area=wet-dry&month=0&submitted=View

The Boulder Clean Power Plan

Posted on by

Screen Shot 2016-02-28 at 8.11.34 PM

So, what they are proposing is this :

2016-02-28141658

Of course they can’t get rid of the other power plant, because this week the wind only blew for a few hours.

Screenshot 2016-02-27 at 08.52.00 AM

NCAR Foothills Lab Weather (english, weekly)

So basically what they want to do is spend huge amounts of money to destroy the environment – and accomplish essentially nothing. The climate of Boulder isn’t changing.

BOULDER_CO_AverageMeanTemperatureAnomaly_Jan_Dec_1950_2015

‘Nonsense’: Top Scientists Demolish Alarmism Behind U.N. Climate Summit

Michael Bastasch

A panel of prominent scientists debunked one of the most popular global warming arguments ahead of a major United Nations climate summit to take place in Paris later this month.

The scientists slammed policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as “nonsense,” and they criticized politicians and activists for claiming the world was on the path for catastrophic global warming.

“The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point,” Dr. Richard Lindzen, a veteran climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” said Lindzen, who is also a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

President Barack Obama and his activist allies are calling for U.N. delegates to sign onto a global treaty to reduce CO2 emissions. Obama has been heavily pushing for this treaty for the past year or so, even lobbying the Chinese government to sign onto an agreement.

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” Dr. Will Happer, a physicist at Princeton University, said during the panel Thursday hosted by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path,” Happer argued.

Scientists and environmentalists have added urgency to the U.N. climate summit by arguing 2015 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record based on surface temperature readings. Scientists warned this month Earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius since the late 1800s.

But Lindzen and his fellow panelists said claims of the hottest year on record are “nonsense” because there’s so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings — especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readings.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense,” Lindzen said. “This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree.”

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made,” Lindzen added. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”

As the world speeds towards Paris, Republicans have ramped up efforts to stop President Obama from being able to carry out his global warming agenda and impose a U.N. treaty on Americans.

Senate Republicans have passed two resolutions opposing carbon dioxide regulations on power plants, and lawmakers introduced a resolution opposed to any U.N. agreement Obama signs onto at the Paris climate summit.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the co-founder of Greenpeace, said of attempts to fight global warming during Thursday’s panel.

“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said. “CO2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years.”
Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nonsense-top-scientists-demolish-alarmism-behind-u-n-climate-summit/#ixzz41PvXmpTl

Millennials Are Well-Meaning but Misguided on Energy Policy

By  February 16, 2016

A recent USA Today/Rock the Vote survey of millennials shows 80 percent of millennials support transitioning to “mostly clean” or renewable energy by 2030. Although their hearts may be in the right place, few millennials appear to realize how much energy their lifestyle actually consumes, where this energy comes from, and how much it would cost to transition to a nation that’s powered predominantly by renewables by 2030.

As a millennial myself, I’m quite familiar with this phenomenon. Many of my peers don’t understand electricity doesn’t just come from the wall; e-mail isn’t necessarily green because it isn’t printed on paper; and a lifestyle that revolves around binge-watching Netflix has a real impact on the environment.

One environmental group estimates U.S. data centers in 2013 consumed an estimated 91 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, the same as the annual output of 34 large (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants, and estimates are these data centers will consume the equivalent of 50 coal-fired power plants by 2030.

It’s ironic the generation that will consume more energy in their lifetimes than any before them, one that uses energy-gobbling technology for virtually every aspect of their lives—including dating apps, social media, finding a taxi, and even ordering from Taco Bell—can be so oblivious of how much energy they consume and where it comes from.

Most of the millennials I’ve spoken to drastically overestimate the amount of energy generated from wind and solar power in the United States. I am often met with incredulous looks when I explain the United States generates only about 2 percent of its total energy consumption from wind and solar combined and that these two sources of power produce less energy for the nation than burning wood.

Just four sources of energy account for 89.5 percent of the total energy produced in the United States. Thirty-five percent comes from oil, 28 percent from natural gas, 18 percent from coal, and 8.5 percent from nuclear.

These forms of energy dominate the mix because they are the most affordable sources and because renewables simply aren’t ready to be used as the country’s primary power sources. Wind and solar are unreliable; they generate energy only when the wind blows or the sun shines, and we have no way of storing this energy. Think of an electric car with no battery, and you will have an idea of why our power system can’t rely on renewables.

For these reasons, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the world will still generate approximately 80 percent of its total energy from fossil fuels in 2040.

Germany and some other nations have aggressively pursued renewable energy, and they are paying a big price for it. Consumer electricity prices in Germany are approximately three times as high as prices in the United States, and wind and solar constitute only about 8.9 percent and 5.7 percent of Germany’s electricity generation, respectively.

Although renewables are unlikely to become staples for energy generation anytime soon, it’s not surprising millennials would want to transition to an economy powered mostly by clean or renewable energy; many of us grew up with our teachers telling us the world would soon run out of fossil fuels and we had to prepare for a switch to renewable energy. Those predictions were completely wrong. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, virtually guarantees decades, if not centuries, of oil and natural gas, and it has made theories of “peak oil” a thing of the past.

Surveys and polls are very susceptible to how the questions are worded. When questions offer people a presumed benefit, without discussing the costs or consequences of the policy in question, results are overwhelmingly positive. This was likely the case with this survey. If provided with all of the information, including the disadvantages, of renewables, millennials would likely be less enthusiastic about relying so heavily on renewable energy.

[Originally published at Inside Sources]

Green Electricity in Denmark, Germany, costs three times as much as US

By Joanne Nova

It’s a bit costly trying to control the weather:

“Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).”

That’s $21 billion that could have been spent on health or education that was used instead to feed the Green Machine. A few handy facts to memorize. The cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour:

Denmark, 42c; Germany 40c, and the USA, 12.5c. ( — Forbes)

Wind and solar power supplies 28% of electricity in Germany (is it really that high?) This is what Australia is aiming for?

Industrial energy prices, electricity, germany, US, UK

Europe is a “green energy” basket case. Washington Post

“Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.”Der Spiegel

Europe’s Energy and Electricity Policies are a Bad Model, Jude Clement, Forbes

“The direct loss of industry because of higher cost electricity is particularly destructive. Manufacturing jobs are very high-paying and the manufacturing business greatly advances nations with a massive “multiplier effect,” where 1 new manufacturing job can create as many as 6 or 7 across the overall economy.

While the manufacturing sector in the EU now employs about 30 million persons directly, down from 37 million 10 years ago, the real devastation is far worse because manufacturing is a building block of a strong economy.”

German Handelsblatt: German Households Getting Crushed By Green Energies To The Tune Of 28 Billion Annually!

Here’s one for the stubborn clingers of green energies like wind and sun. German financial daily Handelsblatt here writes about the harsh reality of these so-called clean, free-for-the-taking energies.

In the earlier days of green energy (some 10 or so years ago, then German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin famously claimed that the cost of wind and solar energy would be easily affordable – equivalent to no more than one scoop of ice cream a month. Environmentalists like David Suzuki once said in a video, “Hey man, it’s for free!” Nothing could be further than the truth.

The Handelsblatt concedes the real (painful) costs of green energy. It writes:

The costs of the Energiewende [transition to renewable energies] for power cosumers in Germany is now running at 28 billion euros annually. A household with a power consumption of 3500 kilowatt-hours annually is thus paying 270 euros a year for implementing the Energiewende.”

That’s the result Germany’s Institute for Economy (IW) calculated on behalf of the Handelsblatt. North American readers should keep in mind that their household energy needs typically run two or even three times higher than the very conservative figure of 3500 kilowatt-hours a year used by the Handelsblatt, this due in large part to harsher winters and hotter summers.

Website The Irish Energy Blog here presents a chart depicting electricity cost as a function of installed sun and wind capacity for all European countries:

wind-strompreis_n

Chart source: irishenergyblog, by BP2015 and Eurostat

The relationship is totally clear: The higher the share of wind and solar power in the power generation, the higher the electricity prices for consumers.

The Handelsblatt cites one industry group representative, Carsten Linnemann: “The consequences of the Energiewende are developing into a dangerous competition factor because it is frightening investors and is costing jobs.”

There’s another sinister side to Germany’s careening Energiewende, the Handelsblatt writes. Because wind and solar power are given the right of way to the power grid over conventional fossil fuel generated power, the conventional plants are forced to run part-time at inefficient levels, which makes them unprofitable. The Handelsblatt continues:

A total of 57 conventional power plants are to be shut down, reports Bild newspaper on Monday, citing figures from the German Power Regulatory Board. That is nine more than at the start of the year. The reason, according to the plant operators, is the lack of profitability due to the Energiewende.”

Of course there will be some out there who will obstinately keep their heads stuck in the sand, and wish all of this wasn’t true.

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/29/german-handelsblatt-german-households-getting-crushed-by-green-energies-to-the-tune-of-28-billion-annually/#sthash.lCiPuo1n.dpuf

————

NOTE: In the United States, the Northeast States and California have the highest electricity rates. Regulatory assault on fossil fuels by the EPA would cause rates to double in the next few decades, and drive up the cost of all energy for heating and transportation.

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 7.59.45 AM