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: November 27, 2016 Filed under: Climatism, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Empirical Evidence, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Government Grants/Funding, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Solar, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Energy Poverty, Fossil Fuels, Fuel Poverty, Global Warming, Natural Gas, Wind Energy, wind energy scam, Wind Farms, wind power
A must read analysis via NTZ reaffirming the disturbing fact that industrial windmills and solar panels remain firmly positioned as mere symbolic icons to the folly of green climate madness…
From NoTricksZone :
As the reputed world leader in green energy policy, Germany plans to eliminate nuclear power as an energy source in the next 5 years.
A 2011 decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022 has meant that renewables like wind and solar power are expected to swiftly take the place of nuclear energy on the German power grid. The portion of Germany’s power generation from wind and solar (renewables) has indeed risen dramatically in the last 10 years:
Image source (cleanenergywire.org)
Germany’s “green” leadership and vociferous allegiance to renewables as a dominant power generation source has elicited controversy. Wind and solar are very labor and material-intensive (expensive) energy sources, and the dramatic rise in solar and wind power capacity has come with great financial expense to German citizens. Poorer households have long been the most adversely affected. Dating back to 2000, electricity prices have risen by 80% in Germany, leaving 7 million citizens “energy poor” (meaning that more than 10% of their income has to be spent on heating and electrifying their homes).
Analysis by the European Commission indicates that “nearly 11% of the EU’s population [encompassing 54 million people] are in a situation where they live in households in which they find themselves unable to heat their homes at an affordable cost,” which may effectively put their lives at risk. This latter point is not an exaggeration. In the UK, where heating costs rose 63% between 2009 and 2014, 25% of citizens over 60 are classified as “energy poor”, leaving the elderly population especially vulnerable. During the frigid winter of 2014, the number of “excess winter deaths” reached 49,260, of which about 14,780 were due to people living in cold homes that they couldn’t afford to heat.
And despite the steep, expensive rise in power generated by renewables since about 2000, Germany still obtained about 44% of its power from coal as of 2014, which is a higher share than in the United States (33% as of 2015). Hundreds of U.S. coal plants have been shuttered in recent years largely because of a monumental nation-wide shift to natural gas power generation, a cleaner fuel that emits much less CO2 upon combustion than does coal.
(In the U.S., in fact, there has been a 12% decline in overall CO2 emissions since 2005 despite the fact that the U.S population has risen by 30 million during those 10 years. As mentioned above, much of the decline in emissions is directly connected to the rapid displacement of coal with natural gas power generation. While the rise in U.S. solar power has also been substantial in the last decade, “for every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.”)
Germany’s heavy reliance on coal — the highest in the EU — is very likely to continue indefinitely despite the nation’s stated commitments to the Paris Agreement and CO2 emissions reductions. The much lower power-generating capabilities of renewables due to their intermittent output (the Sun has to shine and the wind must blow) has meant that reliable backup capacity — fossil fuels or nuclear — must remain on the grid. Since nuclear power is set to be phased out of Germany by 2022, coal necessarily has to stay, even expand. The natural consequence is that Germany’s CO2 emissions have not declined since 2009, and instead there has been a slight emissions uptick in recent years, as the dramatic increase in renewables has not come close to offsetting the greater CO2 emissions generated from the renewed German emphasis on coal.
Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built
What’s happening in Germany is, unfortunately, a bellwether for what is to come in other large wealthy countries attempting to make renewables the kingpin of their power grids. The unspoken truth about renewables was succinctly summarized in a 2012 Los Angeles Times analysis :
“As more solar and wind generators come online, … the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.”
The full article, entitled “Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels” also points out that wind turbines often produce a tiny fraction (1 percent?) of their claimed potential, meaning the gap must be filled by fossil fuels:
Wind provided just 33 megawatts of power statewide in the midafternoon, less than 1% of the potential from wind farms capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
As is true on many days in California when multibillion-dollar investments in wind and solar energy plants are thwarted by the weather, the void was filled by gas-fired plants like the Delta Energy Center.
One of the hidden costs of solar and wind power — and a problem the state is not yet prepared to meet — is that wind and solar energy must be backed up by other sources, typically gas-fired generators. As more solar and wind energy generators come online, fulfilling a legal mandate to produce one-third of California’s electricity by 2020, the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.
Another observational analysis suggests that much of the power generation thought to be attributed to wind actually came from backup sources, or fossil fuels:
“More than half the electric generation nominally credited to wind power is actually produced by fossil fuels, mostly natural gas.”
Analysis from a recently published resource management paper suggests that overall CO2 emissions will actually double in the next 16 years (by 2032) in Canada (Ontario) as more wind and solar capacity is added. Wind and solar require reliable backup when the Sun isn’t shining and/or the wind isn’t blowing…and fossil fuel energies (natural gas, coal) are the reliable backup(s) of choice.
Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants? [pg. 15]
Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation. Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors. Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment. Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America. When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.
Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher.
From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data). In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.
Scientists Increasingly Conclude Global-Scale Renewables-Driven Power Supply Will Never Happen
Scientists have increasingly weighed in on the vacuousness of the current emphasis on renewable energy generation. For example…
Solar power is a “non-sustainable energy sink” and “will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel” even though “many people believe renewable energy sources to be capable of substituting fossil or nuclear energy.”
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/24/analysis-adding-more-solar-wind-power-increases-dependence-on-fossil-fuels-doubles-co2-emissions/#sthash.9TGE05ql.dpuf
(Climatism embolden added)
Via Climatism :
As well as the extra fossil fuel based energy plants required to backup wind and solar installations, keep in mind the additional CO2 produced and mining required to manufacture, transport and maintain windmills and solar panels.
With an average lifespan of only fifteen years, running at max 30% output, an industrial windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
How Green Is My Industrial Wind Turbine? | Climatism
Because wind power fails when the wind stops blowing, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuels which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses:
The energy required for a helicopter to de-ice all the blades on a wind farm must outweigh any supposed saving in CO2 by a factor of 100 or more. Notwithstanding that no wind farm has saved a gram of CO2 due to construction and the necessary spinning reserve.
HUMAN STUPIDITY KNOWS NO LIMITS
At least all those promised “green jobs” are being realised
“Unreliable” Energy Related :
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :