Correcting Harmful Wind Energy-Related Policies

The following are 5  Master Resource postings examining opportunities of the Trump Administration to correct harmful wind energy-related policies,


U.S. Wind Energy Policy: Correcting the Abuse in 100 Days (Part I)      2/2/17


Federal Energy Efficiency Mandates: DOE’s End Run vs. the Public Interest (Part II)

By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton — January 31, 2017


Big Wind: Threat to Air Navigation, Military Assets (Part III)

By Lisa Linowes — February 16, 2017


DOE: Breaking the Federal Arm of the Wind Industry (Part IV)

By Lisa Linowes — February 23, 2017


Wind Energy and Aviation Safety (Part V)                        3/02/17



Wind Energy Simply Won’t Work–Google Engineers Say

The following 6 postings discuss renewable wind energy (and some solar). The postings are ones that I think will interest the reader.  The publishing dates range from 2017 back to 2011.


Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top Google engineers



James Delingpole Hammers the Great Wind Power Fraud: ‘Green Energy is a Charter For Crooks And Liars’            1/19/17



Benny Peiser: Europe Pulls The Plug On Its Green Future


Green Power Gridlock: Why Renewable Energy Is No Alternative    10dec13


The myth of renewable energy           22nov2011


Study: Wind & Solar up to 5X More Costly than Existing Coal and Nuclear    7/26/15



More Alarmist Predictions That Did Not Happen

When you next read in your newspaper that global warming will visit some terrible thing upon you, try to think back to any of the predictions of doom that have ever really taken place.  

From time to time I have posted, prediction after prediction made by the alarmists that have failed to come true. In the meantime, I write letters to the editors asking why they continue to publish the latest warmer prediction. I ask, “do you ever, (the editor of the newspaper), review the alarmist’s previous predictions”? 

Enough of that. Here are a new batch of predictions that haven’t come true.  The following is a reblog of Not A Lot Of People Know That posting titled “April Fools”:

Continue reading

Friends Of Science Engineering Critique Of WWS’s Plan For Global Decarbonization

The previous posting, examined the study “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” published in the Science magazine,  and discussed the major obstacles the warmers face in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the voters to undertake decarbonization.  And do it rapidly.   You may not think thirty years is rapid, but convincing 8 billion people to wipe out the present infrastructure and substitute a new one using as yet unproven methods in 30 years, is moving at a breathtaking speed.

The above noted study, is not the only one that has looked at a way to satisfy the Paris Agreement of holding the global temperature to max.2 ºC rise, with a goal of 1.5ºC rise.  A study by 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS) led by Jacobson, Delucci , et at. is, on the surface (number of pages of detailed discussion), more elaborate than the previous posting.  This  WWS roadmap calls for an 80% reduction of fossil fuels by 2030!  Only 13 years away.

The WWS study is an all-sector roadmap that is said to show how 139 nations could jointly hold the temperature rise to no more than 2ºC.

Friends of Science critique the WWS study with a response titled “WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050” .  Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge says: “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality”.

That’s what guides this critique.  The critique illustrates the enormous number of new renewable facilities needed, the time necessary to put  these facilities in to operation and the amount of space they require.  It is awesome.

Continue reading

Dr. Judith Curry Believes the RoadMap to Zero CO2 Emissions Is Infeasible.



I have promised some critical views from skeptics regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap to zero CO2 emissions by 2050.  If you need to get up to speed regarding  the Paris Agreement Roadmap,  please review my last two postings. 

Let’s begin with Judith Curry’s thoughts on this topic from her posting of 25 March titled A roadmap for meeting Paris emissions reductions goals”.

JC reflections

Apart from the issues raised in this paper, there are several other elephants in this room:  there is growing evidence of much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2; and even if these drastic emissions reductions occurred, we would see little impact on the climate in the 21st century (even if you believe the climate models).

I think that what this paper has done is important:  laying out what it would actually take to make such drastic emissions reductions.  Even if we solve the electric power problem, there is still the problem of transportation, not to mention land use.  Even if all this was technically possible, the cost would almost certainly be infeasible.

As Oliver Geden states, its time to ask policy makers whether they are going to attempt do this or not.  It seems rather futile to make token emissions reductions at substantial cost.

Deciding that all this is impractical or infeasible seems like a rational response to me.  The feasible responses are going with nuclear power or undertaking a massive R&D effort to develop new emission free energy technologies.  Independent of all this, we can reduce vulnerability from extreme weather events (whether or not they are exacerbated by AGW) and the slow creep of sea level rise.


Dr. Curry’s remarks are very succinct.  To be a success, the roadmap requires many inventions that to date have been sought after but not delivered.  And she points out, as noted in this blog on a number of occasions, the climate sensitivity used by the warmers gives temperature increases that are unsupportable.  This roadmap is necessary in large part because it is predicated on those exaggerated temperatures the climate models produce.  That is Dr. Curry’s “elephants in the room.”

And she thinks it is way too costly.  I believe she is spot on.

Dr. Currys posting can be accessed this link

Some additional comments to follow in the next posting.


The Paris Agreement Road Map To Zero GHG Emissions–Next Post The Skeptics Response.

I do not think that the developed nations of the world are ready to endorse the actions they have signed onto when they authorized the Paris Agreement (PA).  They liked the applause they were receiving from the media and the environmentalists. But they have not responded in-kind to their commitments for reducing CO2 emissions or contributions to the fund that helps the underdeveloped nations. See here and here. Vox posting on 4 October 2016 said “No country on Earth is taking the 2ºC climate target seriously”.  The posted this quote: “Right now, with the policies governments have in place, we are heading to a warming of 3.6C said Prof Kornelis Blok of Ecofys.”The developed nations realize that it is time for them to “put up or shut up”. The “put up” part is bedeviled by the fact that most of them are finding that their renewable energy installations, eg solar and wind, are raising the cost of energy to a point where many can no longer afford it.  Further, they are learning that the renewables make their power systems unstable and thus vulnerable to loss of power to supply the customers and industries.

Maybe, just maybe they are becoming aware of the actions they need to undertake to keep the Global temperature rise at no more than the target of  1.5C.  The 24 March 2017 Science magazine published a study titled: “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization”.

Continue reading

Is The Paris Agreement Realistic? Part 1 Background

Time for some background on the Paris Agreement (PA) that was adopted by consensus in December of 2015 at the 21st Conference of Parties (21COP), a UN organization.  These COP meetings are gatherings of warmers, NGOs, and politicians (seeking to tax and regulate their citizens) usually at some exotic place. The attendance is in the 20,000 range, most of them traveling to Bali or the like in fossil fuel powered jet airplanes in order to attend several weeks of meetings in large air conditioned rooms. A little bit of hypocrisy on display, perhaps.

The objective for the PA in general is described by Wiki as follows:

“(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

Continue reading