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

Advertisements

‘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

 

UNPRECEDENTED!!! THE GROUNDHOG DIED!

A groundhog died a year ago November near by back steps. It was followed by the coldest January to February (and snowiest) on record since 1895 here in the northeast and southeast Canada. Yes official government sources in both countries forecast a warm winter.

Sunrise's Swansong

Sad news has come from Canada. The cute and cuddly woodchuck “Winnipeg Willow” expired early on Saturday, January 30. Groundhog Day willow-groundhog

Unconfirmed reports state that Winnipeg Willow was seen drinking heavily on Friday night, and was heard screaming, “I can’t take it any more, I tell you! I’m vermin! I break horses legs with my holes, and can demolish an entire vegetable garden’s worth of spring seedlings in one night! My Momma didn’t raise me to be no teddy bear! But for five years I’ve had to put up with this @%$#&^%,  @#(**&  @#$$^%. I can’t take it! Don’t they know the only time a woodchuck is ever good is in a stew?”

The caretaker could not be reached for comment.

The news that the groundhog died apparently set off panic in Canada’s large community of Global  Warming Alarmists, who have stampeded to the southern border, making it hard for our reporter…

View original post 141 more words

‘Climate change’ lawyers quietly lay groundwork for EPA takeover of U.S. energy

By Michael Bashtach

Environmentalist lawyers have been pushing a legal theory that would give the Environmental Protection Agency cover to regulate every facet of state energy policy — effectively eliminating states’ authority to craft their own regulations.

“Buried in the Clean Air Act is an extremely powerful mechanism that effectively gives EPA carte blanche to tell states to make drastic cuts to their emissions,” Brian Potts, a partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner wrote in Politico Monday.

“This provision, which can now be used thanks to the completion of the Paris climate deal, raises important questions about national sovereignty and states’ rights — questions that Republicans would undoubtedly use to try and kill such a proposal,” Potts wrote. “But the benefits of using this mechanism dwarf those concerns.”

Potts is referring to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Liberal legal scholars argue the Paris global warming treaty has triggered this little-known provision of federal law, and now the EPA can launch a full takeover of states’ environmental regulatory agendas.

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act provides an untapped but potent opportunity for achieving many of the United States’ long-term climate change goals,” 13 liberal legal experts wrote in a January brief published by the Institute for Policy Integrity.

Several lawyers working for various environmental law groups want the EPA to use this provision to implement a nationwide cap-and-trade system. Ever since the defeat of cap-and-trade in Congress in 2010, environmentalists have been looking for legal loopholes for the EPA to use to unilaterally impose cap-and-trade on the U.S.economy.

“EPA and the states could implement a Section 115 regime with less difficulty than the current … approach,” the lawyers wrote, “and could instead combine multiple sectors and source types in a single rulemaking that could establish a nationwide, market-based emissions reduction program.”

‘We Saw This Coming’

Attorney Chris Horner isn’t surprised by the arguments coming from these environmental law groups. Horner says President Barack Obama has always sought to use the United Nations agreement in Paris to further his regulatory agenda.

“As we have made plain all along to any who cared to listen, the administration’s intention behind agreeing to the Paris deal was quite transparently to create an argument and a trap for successive congresses and administrations to impose ever-tighter EPA energy rationing rules in the name of catastrophic man-made global warming,” Horner, an attorney with the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Horner has led the charge against the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, filing lawsuits and uncovering emails showing the agency’s cozy relationship with environmental activists hoping to push more regulations on businesses. Now, Horner has turned his attention to uncovering the legal implications of Obama’s agreeing to cut U.S. emissions.

“Unlike previous global warming treaties like Kyoto, which had a finite life, Paris — which obviously a treaty on its face — includes an evergreen provision promising new rules every five years,” Horner said, adding the Obama administration is already using the Paris agreement as legal precedent to block challenges by states to EPA rules.

“Going forward, expect those arguments in court and in the media echo chamber to help shield EPA’s rules, and to compel more rules every five years,” Horner said. “‘We’ve promised the world!’ Except, only Obama promised them.”

The Path To EPA Rule

Legal scholars say there are two conditions that need to be satisfied before the EPA can take over state regulatory decisions.

First, EPA needs findings from an international agency showing American pollution is harming public health in other countries. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, has been listed as a pollutant by the EPA.

“The many reports put out by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the past few decades meet this requirement,” Potts argued. “The U.S. is one of the top greenhouse gas emitters in the world, and its pollution undoubtedly endangers public health and welfare in many other countries.”

Next, EPA must show a foreign country that’s harmed by U.S. emissions has given America “essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention … of air pollution occurring in that country,” according to Potts. This is where the recent United Nations agreement comes into play.

“The Paris agreement satisfies this reciprocity requirement because there are now nearly 190 countries planning to reduce their emissions, at least in part, to protect one another’s health and welfare,” Potts wrote.

Potts even argued the fact that the Paris agreement isn’t legally-binding doesn’t matter. In his words, “nothing in Section 115 requires such enforceability.”

But the Paris agreement can still be derailed by the Senate, even though it’s not seen as a traditional treaty. The Senate can still assert its constitutional power over treaties to derail the agreement before Obama signs it.

“It is the complete failure by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to do its job, choosing instead by inaction to cede its shared constitutional role in the treaty process to be one that exists at the pleasure of the president,” Horner said. “Now it is time for others to take over.”

“If the Senate as a whole does not provide its Art. II ‘advice’ — that Paris requires ‘consent’ to mean anything to anyone — prior to the president’s planned “Mother Earth Day” signature, we might as well disband the committee and agree with Sec. Kerry that the treaty process is dead, that binding us into perpetual, unpopular schemes is now a unilateral function of the executive,” he added.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/climate-change-lawyers-quietly-lay-groundwork-for-epa-takeover-of-us-energy-sector/#ixzz3zIWZMLIB
/