Posted: December 28, 2016 Filed under: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Fossil Fuels | Tags: Alex Epstein, carbon dioxide, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Energy, Fossil Fuels
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
Bookmark this brilliant explanation of life-giving fossil fuels, ergo CO2, by Climate and Energy reasonalist Alex ALEX EPSTEIN …
Via The Daily Caller :
9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet
Conventional wisdom is that the more fossil fuels
we use, the less livable we make our planet.
And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.
But is it?
1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.
Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.
Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data
The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.
2. Water quality has improved around the world
One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.
Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014
Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.
3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy
Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.
Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014
Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.
Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.
4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming
For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.
In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.
Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.
Global warming since 1850 — the full story
Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.
Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”
5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger
Is our climate becoming more dangerous?
The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.
The trends are shocking.
Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database
In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.
Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.
Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.
Read all nine here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/#ixzz4U8uL5Fkr
CO2 (Fossil Fuel) Related :
CO2 = Extreme Weather Related :
CO2 = Sea Level Rise Related :
Posted: December 17, 2016 Filed under: Australia, BIG Government, Climatism, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: Green Energy Failure, Hazlewood, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, SA Blackout, South Australia, unreliables, Wind Energy, Wind Farms, wind power
A new report by the national electricity regulator has found that September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, was a direct result of
renewable unreliable power sources unable to cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.
Hardly surprising news considering the intermittent nature of weather-dependent wind energy, leading to well-established ‘grid instability’.
Which leads to the ultimate question that “unreliable” energy critics have been asking since the rushed inception of “green” energy as part of the hysterical quest to “Save The Planet” – Why wasn’t the critical factor of grid instability discussed, factored in and ironed out before spending billions upon billions of taxpayers money on the now-failed wind experiment? Who will claim responsibility for the misguided allocation of now proven inferior, useless and failed wind technology?
This is the direct problem faced when big government and statist green central planning gets involved in the commercial sector. Market mechanisms are eliminated, the very mechanisms which promote proper checks and balances to make sure stuff works.
The schizophrenic race for “green” energy has been nothing more than a race by rent-seeking corporatist vampires to suck up unlimited government funds, grants and subsidies.
But hey, who cares about other people’s (taxpayers) hard-earned money when you’re trying to “Save The Planet” right?
When will we learn from our mistakes?
Einstein’s definition of insanity is becoming more and more relevant as we continue to go down the insane path of defunct wind and solar tech:
definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein
Image via Paul Homewood – NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Report via The Australian :
Michael Owen 11:44AM December 15, 2016
A new report by a national electricity regulator has found that, as occurred during September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, renewable power sources cannot cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.
Spinning generators, motors and other devices synchronised to the frequency of the electricity system have naturally provided the inertia necessary to allow the system to cope with uncontrolled changes in frequency.
But new technologies such as a wind or solar have no or low inertia. Currently they have limited ability to dampen rapid changes in frequency.
“Finding new ways to provide inertia and respond to frequency changes is where work is required,” AEMC chairman John Pierce said.
AEMC is currently working on five rule change requests to address both immediate concerns in relation to emergency protection, particularly relating to South Australia’s current frequency issues, as well as new mechanisms to allow security to be maintained across the entire system.
Despite numerous warnings to the South Australian Labor government about the risk of frequency problems and increased load shedding, brownouts and blackouts, the state has pursued a renewable energy policy that has seen around 45 per cent of its generation come from wind and solar.
The state’s last coal-fired baseload power station was forced to shut in May because of the rise of renewables, with Premier Jay Weatherill and his Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis both declaring “coal is dead”. The state is now reliant upon an interconnector with Victoria to import coal-fired baseload power.
It has today emerged that a plan by the owners of the Northern power station and transmission company ElectraNet to reopen the power plant as a converter to stabilise the state’s wind-vulnerable grid was abandoned because of the red tape involved.
The power station would be demolished within one to two months but it would have taken at least a year for a full study and assessment on the reopening proposal under government regulation, before a decision could be made on funding.
While there has been no cost estimate released, such a move would likely be very expensive.
ElectraNet is urgently looking at options to stabilise the state’s grid in the absence of the Northern power station.
Mr Pierce said there were challenges ahead in managing system security, which was essential to allow reliable electricity supplies to be provided to customers.
“The changes that need to be made centre on the physics of energy supply, transmission and meeting demand,” Mr Pierce said.
“Many different technical options are emerging in today’s electricity sector and we want to encourage further innovation — rewarding the best options that may mature over time.
“We also need market mechanisms that reward the best outcomes while keeping consumer prices as low as possible over the long term.”
The AEMC interim report suggests changes that include new measures to enable provision of additional inertia for the system most likely through synchronous machines and development of fast acting frequency response services, which might be provided via invertor-based generators such as wind turbines, by energy storage devices and by demand-response schemes.
“This review puts an umbrella over many issues being raised by stakeholders in relation to the power system’s ability to keep the lights on while maintaining its frequency at a constant level,” Mr Pierce said.
“The review will consider both policy mechanisms that are in place now; and analyse how any of the feasible emissions reduction policies may impact the future power system.”
He also said that a more efficient gas market would improve the power system’s ability to integrate renewables like wind and solar by providing fast-start backup for intermittent generation.
“Making it easier to buy and sell gas helps lower supply costs for gas-fired power stations which are now replacing coal generators,” he said.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the Turnbull government welcomed the draft AEMC report.
“The increasing amount of solar and wind is creating a real challenge to the security of our nation’s electricity market, as they are non-synchronous generation technologies,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“As Bill Shorten and his mates in the Labor states chase unrealistic high renewable energy targets they have failed to take into account the fact that the increasing amount of solar and wind power they are encouraging into the system is reducing energy secruity across the National Electricity Market.
“In contrast, the benefits that hydro, gas and coal have provided, essentially for free, to keep the electricity system secure have been taken for granted.”
“As more intermittent generation comes into the grid, new markets are going to have be created for things like inertia which are essential to energy security.”
He said these issues will be considered by the Finkel Review and the AEMC.
The AEMC is calling submissions by February 9.
Countries Seeing The Light (literally)
Ideologically aggressive “green” GERMANY has spent €1 Trillion Euros, of other people’s money, on Wind and Solar power through the Energiewende program, only to undergo her biggest coal-fired power expansion in history.
Source : Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND)
CHINA is falsely portrayed by green-energy advocates as “leaders in the push for renewable technology”.
In reality, China setup their own small-scale wind and solar power generation purely to appease the West in a symbolic show of “Green” faith.
The result of China’s symbolic wind experiment? –> China Counts the Staggering Cost of its Wind Power Experiment | Climatism
Where they are winning, big-time, is in the mass-manufacture of wind and solar applications, sold back to the climate change obsessed West.
And the power used to manufacture the 16th Century industrial windmills, ironically, coming from the very coal that the West has condemned, demonised and shipped-off to China so she can open a coal-fired power station every week!
Insanity on a bizarre level.
China’s energy reality
China are opening a new-generation coal-fired power plant every week. –> China 5-Year Plan Confirms Massive Expansion Of Coal Fired Capacity | Climatism
Meanwhile, back in climate change obsessed Australia, they are “Blowing Up” and decommissioning their coal-fired power plants!
Playford coal-fired power station in Port Augusta — put out of business by Labor’s green policies — had its towers brought down by explosives.
The world sure got that message: South Australia is closed for investment in heavy industry, and so, soon, will be the rest of Australia if we don’t learn from its madness.
Blowing up the Playford station was Labor, Greens and now Liberals saying yes to wind farms and the country’s highest power prices, and saying yes to the country’s highest unemployment, too.
It gets even worse. South Australia relies on a giant extension cord connected to neighbouring Victoria’s coal-fired power station Hazlewood, in order to supply baseload energy when the “wind don’t blow”.
About 600MW or a third of SA’s energy is drawn from Victoria. And as we know, when the windmills failed in September’s statewide blackout, the system flicked to the Victorian coal-fired interconnector and it overloaded leading to Statewide lights out.
So, you would think that increasing coal-fired power capacity or another baseload alternative like nuclear would be necessary to save industry, jobs, reduce massive power-price hikes and to simply keep the lights on, right?
Well in the utopian land of Oz, that answer is a big eco-NO! And hold onto your chair for why…
The Victorian Labor Government is decommissioning Hazlewood as of 2017 in order to ramp up its own defunct
renewable unreliable energy program!
Hazelwood coal power station to close with loss of up to 1,000 jobs | Australia news | The Guardian
That definition of insanity again please…
“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein
16th Century, weather-dependent Windmills have failed as a legitimate baseload energy source.
All they really do is relieve climate guilt for the gullible while diverting trillions of dollars of taxpayers money to rent-seeking corporate vampires.
See also :