Monthly Archives: February 2017

For The Left, The NGOs and The Technical Societies, The Battle Over EPA Regulations Is All About Money


The EPA has been overstepping its authority. This has led to regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome and often not in concert with bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. At times, the EPA has been acting as a law making body, which is beyond their authority.  The current Administration intends to correct this situation.

gore-making-money

As the Administration undertakes this task, the Left will mount a campaign intended to defeat the Administrations objestives.  The Left will tell you that the Administration is going to poison your children, make all rivers a sewer, make the air you breathe toxic and Earth will be destroyed by catastrophic climate change. None of which is true.  The media of course will join in and support anything the Left says.  They will report about someone who is supposed to be suffering because of the actions of the Administration. They will ignore the many who are able now make a success of their business as the useless regulations are canceled. The left knows they will miss their opportunity to tax and regulate if the Administration is successful.

Continue reading

EU Does Not Count CO2 Emissions From Wood Burning Power Plants


I am l taking a section out of an excellent posting by James Delingpole title “Delingpole: Why Renewables are doomed and fossil fuels are the future” from the Breitbart website.  It is a very long posting and before I decide to try to summarize it, I want to have you take a look at an ignorant or disingenuous statements by a Brit CEO.

“There is currently in much of the West a vast gulf between where government policy sits on the renewables issue and where reality lies. A good example of this is Britain’s largest power station Drax which has been encouraged by UK government policy introduced in the Labour era – but not opposed by David Cameron’s pretend-Conservatives – to stop using coal and instead burn wood chips, supposedly because they’re carbon neutral, “renewable” and therefore more eco-friendly.

Except in fact this policy has been appalling for the environment – how is it eco-friendly to chop down acres of North Carolina forest and ship them 3,800 miles to be burned for fuel? – and has done nothing to reduce CO2 levels.

It is symptomatic of the bizarre, looking glass world we inhabit that when Christopher Booker pointed this out in this Sunday Telegraph column, the CEO of Drax Dorothy Thompson felt able to reply with this letter:

 woodburningeu

 

But as Paul Homewood demonstrates here in some detail, many of these claims just aren’t true. The only reason that Dorothy Thompson can get away with them with even a hint of good conscience is simply that she is backed up by an apparatus of official lies.

As he notes, for example, in his reply to her letter:

Dorothy Thompson (Letters, 5th Feb) claims that Drax’s biomass plant makes carbon savings of 80%, compared with coal. However, this is based on EU accounting rules, which classify burning wood as “zero carbon”.

Drax’s own figures show that CO2 emissions from biomass are actually 12% greater than coal for each unit of electricity generated.

 

Burning wood produces ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS!!!  Based on that EU logic, North Korea might be the most environment friendly nation in the world.  North Korea has cut down nearly every tree in the country. See “Did CO2 Cause North Korea To Collapse?”

cbdakota

 

 

The Paris Agreement Has It Wrong–Developed Nations Are Not The Primary Sources Of Greenhouse Gases.


The website EnergyMatters’ posting titled “Attributing the blame for global warming” is one of the most intriguing postings I have read lately.   The posting discusses a report made by a UN group to determine who is responsible for the man-made greenhouse gases that the warmers say have damaged the Earth. The Paris Agreement, for example, blames the Developed Nations and wants them to pay reparations to the rest of the world. The posting, on the contrary, persuasively argues that the developed nations aren’t not the primary sources of greenhouse gases.  Further the folly of the “Developed Nations are at fault theme” is that when projected into the future the evidence says it is even less true.  For those of us that believe that nature is the primary forcing agent with regard to global climate change, who is to “blame” is not particularly our big issue, but it is for the warmers.  This posting seems to point out they continue to get it wrong:

Continue reading

Daily Mail Says–NOAA Duped World Politicians With Manipulated Global Warming Data


Whistleblower Dr. John Bates really has stirred up a hornet’s nest.  He says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA)  global temperature revisions made just before the Paris COP meeting are suspect.  Skeptics have been critical of those revisions from the very beginning.  The UK Daily Mail posted “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”    The Daily Mail opened up their posting with this:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

dupped-politicians

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

Continue reading

The Sad State Of The German Energy Program–By Fritz Vahrenholt


The following is from a posting by PowerEngineeringInternational titled “Vahrenholt rails against the ‘climate priests”.

PowerEngineeringInternation is pretty much into catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW); but to their credit, they did capture most of the thought of Professor Fritz Vahrenholt on the sad state of the German energy program and the transition to renewables.  At the end of their posting, they list quotes by warmer scientists that provide their thoughts about what Prof. Vahrenholt said presumably to maintain PowerEngineeringIntenational in the good stead with the powers that be in CAGW.  It is instructive that they avoid actually challenging Vahrenholt’s points.  They revert to the “everybody knows the globe is warming” standby.

At a mid-January meeting in parliament buildings in London, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt provided a very detailed monologue on the motivations behind Germany’s energy transition, and why he feels it’s misguided and potentially disastrous.

Had the lecture been delivered by somebody from the coal power sector, they might have been written off as a ‘climate denier’, but given Vahrenholt’s background and pedigree as a backer of renewable energy, he is not so easily dismissed and his position must cause some unease for those so adamant that climate change is manmade.

It should give pause for thought too to the public at large. Governments and media around the world, not just in Germany, are convinced that man is responsible for the recently observed temperature rises and Polar ice cap reduction.

But Vahrenholt believes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the main body from which the rest of the world takes its cue on such matters, is not approaching the problem with the correct scientific rigour.

The merits of the science aside, he takes most issue with the behaviour of his own country’s government for ‘trying to save the world.’

Germany has the second highest electricity prices in Europe, and in phasing out nuclear while stimulating over-production of renewables, it has reduced power prices to a pitiful extent, and ironically came to rely on coal. The last two factors mean the prospect of a lack of investment in the country’s future energy infrastructure, while targets for reducing CO2 look likely to be missed.

Much of Germany’s current problems arise from what he believes was an emotional reaction to the Fukushima disaster by Chancellor Angela Merkel – an order to accelerate the phasing out of a power source that had provided 30 per cent of the country’s electricity.

Vahrenholt says there is an endgame for the Energiewende, ‘though this reckless policy has worked until now’, referring to the German proverb ‘the donkey goes on to the ice until it breaks.’

“There will come a point when the rural population, or wildlife protection agencies, or a weakening economy or failures in the grid itself will force a return to conventional generation.”

He said one of the reasons the German population still backed the policy is because they are still relatively economically prosperous, with a weak euro and the work done by Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, continuing to sustain the economy.

“The second reason it works is that energy intensive industries are exempted from the levy. They are profiting because of the overcapacity from renewables leading to sinking prices.”

Vahrenholt mocked the government’s current strategy of trebling wind farm capacity as the wind cannot be predicted and their output fluctuates enormously.

“Nil multiplied by x is still nil,” he said, while the price keeps mounting, and the carbon price remains too low to encourage carbon capture and storage at lignite plants which remain essential to fill the intermittency gaps, as gas-fired power plants are mothballed or closed completely.

He reserved his gravest criticism for the damage being wrought on the German countryside where the use of biofuels is having a bad impact. Pesticide use and monoculture has led to major declines in bird of prey numbers.

He calculated that to maintain the policy there would have to be a wind turbine ‘every 2.7km whether the landscape is lakes, wood or towns.’

A particularly acute sign of the failure of the policy is the current rate of progress and expense in bringing renewables from wind plants in the north to the south, where nuclear shutdowns are most keenly felt.

“6100 km cables are planned to be built but four years later only 80 km have been laid. Government has underestimated the resistance to the imposition of overhead power lines on this scale– so all plans have been torn up and they areof course also be added on to household bills.”

We are talking about DC cables which have never been built at this scale underground. In the best case scenario these cables will be laid five years after the nuclear shutdown.” now going underground at huge extra cost, which will

Re-dispatching of power is another feature of the new reality for the German electricity system. The grid operator would previously be called upon to interfere between power plants and customers once a day on average. This procedure now occurs 20 times a day, amounting to 6000 interventions a year in order to have guarantee system stability.

Because the merit order that facilitated market prices for power no longer works, thanks to the success of renewable energy, no new conventional power plants are being built. 69 power plants with a total capacity of 8000 MW are in the red as a result, as power plants are no longer profitable in the current scenario.

Due to a lack of supply in southern Germany the government was forced to intervene, creating a law whereby plants were only permitted to close by the grid agency with a minimum lead time of one year. These requests are being denied anyway, according to Vahrenholt, who very much paints a picture of a government making it all up on an ad-hoc basis.

“A term used in banking was system relevancy = the same term is now in use for power plants who are not allowed to close in Germany even on negative figures.”

“The owner of the plant receives only the operational cost,” Vahrenholt said, with obvious implications for investment in new plants.

Noting the latest figures showing a 2.5 per cent rise in CO2 in Germany last year, he also expressed doubt about the claims for storage (prohibitively expensive) and electro mobility (limited solution) as potential answers, making for a very dark narrative indeed.

To add more to an already gloomy picture, the professor said the Energiewende was creating an ‘ecological disaster’ through its assertiveness in building wind farms and biogas plants.

“Turning grassland into monoculture maize means deserts of maize replacing other food sources and ruining ecologies, a disaster for biodiversity. Birds of prey are also victims of the green religion. Take the lesser spotted eagle – there are only 100 braces left in Germany. The red kite lose 1000 each year due to wind turbines. The common buzzard is losing 11000 per year. The environment minister says the red kite could be gone by 2025.”

“The same problem exists for bats. Wind turbines are going into forests and other sensitive areas – because we want to save the world and destroy our nature.”

“In the transportation of equipment to the forest, paths are created and bats take that freeway and fly directly into turbines. They go through but their lungs are bursting and evolution has not prepared them so 240 000 bats are killed each year in Germany even though by law it is forbidden to kill a bat.”

He said the chance of a ‘policy correction’ would only happen under certain circumstances:
The average global temperature doesn’t rise as much as predicted
Loss of German competitiveness becomes acutely felt
or
the spoiling of the German landscape becomes a major political issue.

The glimmer of hope in Vahrenholt’s thinking is that future generations would have technology such as thorium reactors or nuclear fission that could save the day, but ‘it will take a long time to redress this misguided energy policy.

cbdakota

 

NorthWest Passage Still Not Open–Someone Call Al Gore And Tell Him


Russian ice breakers escorted cargo ships from Archangel to Pervek on an Arctic Ocean trip beginning on 14 December 2016 and arriving on 7 January 2017.  It was thought that the temperature and the condition of the ice were such that they could make the return trip.  But they did not get far before they were stopped by very thick ice.  They had aerial surveys made of the of the route back to Archangel and concluded that it would not be passable for the cargo ships.  The map of the area of the Arctic Ocean were the ship traveled is shown below:

arctic-icebreakersMap courtesy of The Siberian Times. 

From The Siberian Times comes this quote:

But now a spokesman for Rosmorport has announced the icebreakers will delay a return until probably May or early June. ‘The vessels will remain for the winter because of the very heavy severe ice conditions,’ he said.

All the vessel got out of the ice, and three of them – Captain Dranitsyn and the two cargo ships – returned to Pevek. The Admiral Makarov moved further east to continue working for Rosmorport in clearing sea routes.

Officials said the icebreakers could have gone further through the ice but there was ‘a very high risk of significant damage’ to the supply ships, and it was decided to postpone the return to Archangelsk.”

 I guess the North-West Passage is still not open for business.  Hard to believe because that famous guru, Al Gore said the Arctic Ocean would be ice free by 2010.  And isn’t he the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for such prized predictions as that one.

As an aside, I often forget how small the distance between Russia and the United States (State of Alaska) is.  During the last glacial era, that point is said to be the “land bridge” that began the population of North America.

cbdakota