WORLD Building New Coal Plants Faster Than It Shuts Them

Coalpowerplant Construction

A DOSE of global energy reality that should act as a shot in the arm for climate obsessed politicians who have recklessly bowed down to the green religion. Australian elected representatives, from both sides of the aisle, morally swooned into symbolic, unreliable and ‘unelected‘ green-energy sources that have destroyed Australia’s competitive advantage with power prices, now officially, the highest in the world.

MEANWHILE, the rest of the energy-sane world saves their virtuous eco-speak for Paris gabfests and moves forward with cheap, efficient and reliable energy sources that underpin economic strength and job security.

THE global coal-fired power boom Via The Australian :

Nations around the world are building coal-fired power plants at a faster rate than those being ­decommissioned. The plants under construction reflect a 10 per cent increase to the total global generation powered by coal.

New electricity generated by coal-fired plants will outstrip that which was retired in 2015 and 2016 by a factor of five.

With Australia facing a policy crisis over energy security and the winding back of reliance on coal, construction of new coal-fired power plants was increasing in at least 35 countries, according to data analysis supplied to the ­Nationals by the federal parliamentary library. China has 299 new coal generation units under construction, followed by India which is building 132. Australia’s closest neighbour, Indo­nesia, was planning a further 32.

Nuclear countries, including Japan and South Africa, were also increasing their exposure to coal-powered investment, with 21 new plants between them. Vietnam was building 34.

The data was requested by ­Nationals senator and party whip John Williams, who has argued that the carbon emissions produced by the new plants worldwide would eclipse Australia’s total carbon emission profile.

“We don’t have a tent over Australia … emissions are going up around the world because of these generators being built,” ­Senator Williams told The Australian. “We are bowing down to the green agenda which will make no difference to the world’s ­emissions.

“It makes no sense. We will de-industrialise Australia and let everything be manufactured overseas with higher emissions.”

The parliamentary library paper showed that 321 gigawatts of new generation would come from coal plants under construction globally. In 2015 and 2016, total coal generation retired amounted to 64 gigawatts.

Worldwide, the paper showed, there were currently 5973 units of coal-fired power generation. There are often multiple power-generating units within a power station. The number of new units under construction totalled 621.

It would take until 2057 for Australia’s 16 remaining coal-fired power stations to reach the end of their working life, with four slated to shut in the next decade.

Simon Benson (National Political Editor @simonbenson)

World building new coal plants faster than it shuts them | The Australian

Janet Albrechtsen on the mad politics behind Australia’s unreliable-energy debacle:

Australia’s competitive advantage as a country with cheap, reliable energy has been sacrificed…

Labor and the Coalition have allowed the politics of ­climate change to distort sensible energy policy. The only difference between the two major parties is one of degree, with Labor pushing a higher renewable energy target than the Coalition. In both cases, the climate tail is wagging the energy dog, with RETs and subsidies rendering investment in coal unviable, leading to gaps in baseload power, grid instability, blackouts and that insufferably high power bill on your kitchen bench. If renewables made economic sense without subsidies, the industry would thrive without an RET and without driving up energy ­prices. It’s hard to imagine a policy more certain to kill jobs and industry and drive investment offshore.

•••

See Also :

Energy Related :

World Coal-Fired Power Surge Related :

 

 

Advertisements

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.

– Barack Obama,
US President

•••

UPDATE : Washington Post Slams Kerry For Pushing Obama’s Climate BS | Real Science

See also :

Obamaclimate Related :

H/t to Al Zore


The Science Of Climate Change Politics

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

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••

Ben Pile identifies the all too simplistic view of the climate debate by Government science advisors. Where the use of scientific ‘authority’ to influence policy, results in the failure of advisors to shed any light on the debate.

…twenty-first-century science is not recruited to find solutions to material problems. It is appointed to lend its authority to politics. The preferred solutions to the problem of climate change have been top-down target-driven policies, rather than technological or economic ones. Scientists have consequently been forced to frame their own contributions to the debate in the preferred, urgent terms that underpin radical policy interventions.

Screen Shot 2014-02-01 at , February 1, 12.42.48 am

Sir Mark Walport’s demand that climate-change sceptics ‘grow up’ only reveals his ignorance about the climate debate.

BEN PILE
WRITER AND RESEARCHER

According to an article in The Times (London) earlier this week, the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, is about to start a lecture tour, which ‘will put climate change back on the political agenda’. With the global effort to reduce CO2 emissions in tatters, with the EU doing a volte-face on its own green energy targets, with the UK examining its own commitment to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to green legislation, and with scientists scratching their heads about the absence of warming over the past 17 years, Walport’s words seem incautious, possibly foolish.

Environmentalists have a tendency to do their own negative PR. Too much was invested by too many in the notion that, by now, we would be seeing the natural world fall apart, taking human civilisation with it. It didn’t happen. Environmentalists’ prophecies about the climate have gone the way of their prophecies about population, resource depletion, and toxic chemicals. The IPCC – the embodiment of the consensus itself – recently reported that there is no climate change signal in extreme weather events, except a slight tendency toward warmer days and increased precipitation. Nature, it seems, abhors vacuous alarmists.

Worse, environmentalists have failed to reflect on their own failures, and to find some other way of accounting for them. Accordingly, Walport’s opening salvo in this new climate offensive were ‘There are some people who don’t like the policy implications of climate change and think that the best way to duck the discussion is to deny the science’. The government’s soothsayer points his expert finger.

Walport is wrong. There have been countless criticisms of UK, EU, and UN climate and energy policies, quite apart from the criticisms of mainstream climate science, from climate sceptics. Climate sceptics have long been critical of the UK government’s hastily-constructed attempts to save the planet. And sceptics have observed that green-energy policies are expensive, don’t provide adequate or reliable supply, and have created deep distortions in the energy market – problems which are now being felt across Europe. Furthermore, sceptics have argued that emission-reduction targets were never tested for feasibility, much less for costs and benefits, and even less for their effectiveness at saving the planet.

There is even a think-tank established precisely to interrogate climate policy – the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The clue is in the name. The GWPF has published reports on EU policyshale gasalarmism in policymakinggreen jobsproblems with the IPCCthe Stern Review, and many other topics. If Walport had read just one of them, he would surely address them.

Walport joins his predecessors, such as David King and John Beddington, and past and present presidents of the Royal Society in taking a simplistic view of the climate debate. But the problem with such naked attempts to use scientific authority to influence policy is that these men soon reveal their lack of expertise and understanding. They are forced by their own ignorance to reinvent the debate, and in the process miss its substance, arguing instead with the cartoonish image of sceptics that exists only in their heads. The result is that these advisers fail to shed any light on the debate they are appointed to inform.

‘Climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism’, said David King in 2004. The job of the chief scientist is not as much to inform the debate as to supply it with banal soundbytes. ‘The evidence that climate change is happening is completely unequivocal’, claimed John Beddington as he left the chair now occupied by Walport last year. But note what is absent from these claims: any sense of proportion. Walport, like his predecessors, fails to add any perspective, claiming: ‘Whether life is going to get very difficult in the UK in 50 years or 100 years at some level is not the point. It is going to get very difficult for us over a relatively short timescale.’

Continue Reading »

Scientific adviser or court jester? | Environment | spiked

•••

(Scary) UPDATE

via Real Science :

EPA : Purpose Of Science And Technology Is To “Meet Obama’s Needs”

Posted on January 31, 2014

“science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA” …. McCarthy said.

EPA Administrator to Scientists: ‘Speak the Truth’ on Climate Change to Meet Obama’s ‘Needs’ | CNS News

ScreenHunter_513 Jan. 31 09.44

Twitter / JunkScience: Science’s new mission: EPA …

•••

President Eisenhower warned America about Barack Obama and his EPA in 1960:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present  and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”

– President Eisenhower 1960

•••

Related :


Help, there’s an ICLEI in my backyard! (Part Two)

Climatism comment : The UN’s un-mandated power and influence at the local Government level through ICLEI (aka Agenda 21) is at best highly deceptive, at worst extremely dangerous to societal freedoms.

More need to be aware of their vastly overreaching ‘sustainability’ agenda and overall globalist intentions.

Great read. TQ.

Will add Parts 1 & 2 to my Agenda 21 Links page

FAUXGREEN

IMG_4211

The wolf in sheep’s clothing in Ontario

In Part One we tried to understand why useless and destructive industrial wind turbines continue to be forced on unwilling communities in rural Ontario. The Government of Ontario seems to be in the grip of powerful unelected, unaccountable interests that makes it care little for the democratic process, the welfare of the people or the health of the economy.

We discussed how Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, devised by the United Nations, is a plan to inventory and control everything and everyoneon the planet. The rationale for the plan is the phoney prognostication of catastrophic climate change brought about by supposed man-made global warming. The leading promoter of this massive doom-and-gloom scenario is the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As James Delingpole put it in his must-read book Watermelons:

the ‘evidence’ that has been provided for us by the sources of…

View original post 2,092 more words


Feds Alarmed By Global Cooling in 1974

Climatism Comment:

Deep within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go belly up.

We don’t have to go too far back in time to witness man’s fear and fascination with climate fluctuations, natural or man-made. The Global Cooling and “New Ice-Age” scare of the late 1970’s promised mankind ‘political upheaval, social unrest, major economic damage and global food shortages.’ However given lots of money and “urgent” action from the top, clever man was able to miraculously avert such global catastrophe.

Fast forward only 35 years and the dire warnings and economic scenarios we read about in today’s current Global Warming ‘crisis’ are straight out of the 1970’s Global Cooling playbook; simply swap cooling for warming and voilà ~ another “man-made” global catastrophe to match the temperature of the day. And another excuse for Government’s to steal your hard-earned money and play weather-god’s to fix a perceived ‘climate crisis’. The United Nations’ IPCC now aims to prove human CO² is causing global warming as part of their belief that industrialised populations will exhaust all resources and must be shut down.

• Short memories we have.

  • Highlights from “A United States Climate Program” 1974 :
  • The recommended U.S. Climate Program will require $39.8M of new funding in FY 76, with further increases of $7.3M in 77and $9.4 in FY 78. 
  • Because the impacts of climate fluctuations are felt directly or indirectly by all nations, and because the processes that control climate and the systems to monitor them are global in scope, international efforts will be needed. The United States should foster them in all appropriate forms.
  • It is clear that climate fluctuations are resulting in major economic, social and political consequences. Our vulnerability has a increased; as the world’s population and the affluence of part of it have grown, grain reserves have shrunk to the point …. These concerns are compounded by mounting evidence that man’s industrial and agricultural activities may cause changes in climate inadvertently….

UPDATE

1973 : 100% NSF Global Cooling Consensus

screenhunter_979-sep-26-22-41

ScreenHunter_980 Sep. 26 22.41

ScreenHunter_981 Sep. 26 22.42

The Bryan Times

Scoundrels at NOAA and NASA have been working tirelessly to rewrite the history of the period, but sadly for them, the Internet never forgets.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/extreme-weather-in-the-1960s-1970s/

 

Most of us will be aware of the stories about the “ice age scare” during the 1970’s. Many have dismissed these as little more than journalistic hype, but some facts are incontrovertible.

  1. Northern Hemisphere temperatures fell sharply between the 1940’s and 1970’s
  2. Arctic ice expanded rapidly.
  3. Many severe weather events were linked to this cooling.

 

 

The US Government was concerned enough about this climatic change that, in 1974, it set up a Subcommittee on Climate Change, under the auspices of the Secretary of the Interior.The Committee was to be chaired by Robert White, Administrator of NOAA, and made up of representatives from various Federal agencies and offices.

I have obtained copies, from the NOAA archives, of some of the original documents relating to the setting up this Committee, along with their December 1974 report, “A United States Climate Program”. Excerpts…

View original post 242 more words


Green Police

“Attacks To Make The Polluter Pay”Greg Hunt MP for Climate Action (Uni Thesis)

•••

Screen Shot 2013-09-11 at , September 11, 9.42.42 PM
Parental leave, Green Army unwanted says Nationals candidate | The Murray Valley Standard
•••

“Green Army” in direct action :


Bureaucratic Dioxide

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

•••

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

•••

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

•••

Lindzen discusses the state of the climate change debate, the lack of evidence for catastrophic warming and what the science really tells us.

•••

UPDATE

Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds. Keep Reading »

h/t to Al Zore @ICLEI_AGENDA21

UPDATE

Via Jo Nova

The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora

From the AIRS satellite at NASA

Watch how greenness and CO2 oscillate. Carbon dioxide is the yellow stuff on the map.

As you watch the yearly cycle, hold on to the thought: “my car can change global CO² levels”…

(My favourite part starts half way).

Continue Reading »

UPDATE

Exceptional piece on The Gas of life, Carbon Dioxide by Paul Driessen :

Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life

Paul Driessen | Aug 15, 2013

It’s amazing that minuscule bacteria can cause life-threatening diseases and infections –- and miraculous that tiny doses of vaccines and antibiotics can safeguard us against these deadly scourges. It is equally incredible that, at the planetary level, carbon dioxide is a miracle molecule for plants -– and the “gas of life” for most living creatures on Earth.

In units of volume, CO2’s concentration is typically presented as 400 parts per million (400 ppm). Translated, that’s just 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere -– the equivalent of 40 cents out of one thousand dollars, or 1.4 inches on a football field. Even atmospheric argon is 23 times more abundant: 9,300 ppm. Moreover, the 400 ppm in 2013 is 120 ppm more than the 280 ppm carbon dioxide level of 1800, and that two-century increase is equivalent to a mere 12 cents out of $1,000, or one half-inch on a football field.

Eliminate carbon dioxide, and terrestrial plants would die, as would lake and ocean phytoplankton, grasses, kelp and other water plants. After that, animal and human life would disappear. Even reducing CO2 levels too much – back to pre-industrial levels, for example – would have terrible consequences. Continue Reading »

•••

Related:

Climatism Hot Links :