China Gas Output Rises to Record as Coal Production Rebounds

UPDATE on “The end of coal, fossil fuels and the rise of unreliables – wind/solar.”

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-17/china-coal-production-rises-as-government-avoids-output-limits

From Bloomberg:

China’s natural gas production surged to a record last month and coal output rebounded as economic growth accelerated power use in the world’s largest energy user.

View original post 350 more words


South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle: Supermarkets Sacking Staff, While Sales of Portable Generators Boom

And what is that stuff called that portable generators run on again?? Oh that’s right – fossil fuels!

Greens and their feel-good, useless windmills. Creating hugely expensive, unreliable and unwanted energy causing a boom in Chinese made fossil fuel generators (using our demonised coal to make them of course!)

Another great example of Greens and their feel-good intentions and insane policies that is “Killing The Earth To Save It”!

You really can’t make this stuff up.

STOP THESE THINGS

spot-price-sa-2017

Reliable, secure and affordable electricity is one of those things that the last few generations of Australians have largely taken for granted.

Not so in Australia’s so-called ‘wind power capital’, South Australia. These days, Croweaters count their blessings if power is delivered at all and count their pennies every time they’re hit with a power bill that is magnitudes greater than the last.

With a power supply to rival Equatorial Africa and retail prices more than double their neighbouring states, South Australians are at wits end. The first article from The Australian deals with the crashing economic impact that South Australia’s rocketing power prices are having on business, while the second details the kind of DIY spirit that’s needed in a State obsessed with its attempt to run on sunshine and breezes.

Supermarket staff cut to absorb $2.5m rise in power costs
The Australian
Meredith Booth
10 February 2017

One…

View original post 827 more words


Aussie Chief Scientist: Renewable Energy Push Hurts the Poor

Another example of how it is not supposed “Global Warming” that hurts the poor, rather the draconian “Green” policies, schemes and scams that bring misery, doom and gloom.

Watts Up With That?

Wind_cash_flow_scr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has strongly criticised the impact of renewable energy policies on the poor, working class people and migrants.

Renewable energy push to hit Labor’s heartland

The Australian12:00AM December 29, 2016
MICHAEL OWEN SA Bureau Chief Adelaide @mjowen

Dr Finkel, who is conducting a review of the electricity market for the federal government following the statewide blackout in South Australia in September, said people who rented properties or lived in apartments were limited in their ability to install new technologies.

Migrants with limited English, people with poor financial literacy and those struggling to make ends meet were at risk of paying ­increased costs to subsidise households or businesses able to invest in new technologies. Passive or loyal consumers who were not ­engaged in managing their electricity demand and costs were vulnerable too, Dr Finkel added.

The danger was that, as…

View original post 461 more words


9 Graphs That Prove Carbon Dioxide Is Our Best Friend

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

carbon-dioxide-leaf_compressed

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

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress
1:17 PM 11/13/2014
.

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?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook
*
Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

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.

unnamed (1)

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.

unnamed (2)

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.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.20-PM-620x478.png

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

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.29-PM-620x477.png

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.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-17-at-3.30.17-PM-620x478.png

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 :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress

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?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook

Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

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.

unnamed (1)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.

unnamed (2)

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.

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.20 PM

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

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.29 PM

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.

Screen Shot 2014-11-17 at 3.30.17 PM

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 more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/2/#ixzz4U8zDhKiI


The World Needs More Energy!

A very powerful and important read by Steven Lyazi – a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda.

Wow!

Excerpts that grabbed my attention:

“But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.
They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.

“But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.
It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.

“But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.”

Read it all…

PA Pundits - International

Driessenprofile2Paul Driessen from CFACT introduces this Guest Post ~

In his new article, my young Ugandan mentee Steven Lyazi makes a passionate appeal, asking that African and global leaders do much more to make fossil fuels and electricity available for poor families, nations and communities around the world. Only in that way, he convincingly argues, can the world’s poor improve their lives, living standards, health and life spans.

Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us

By Steven Lyazi ~

Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?

Of all these resources, energy is the most…

View original post 1,219 more words


Adding More Solar And Wind Power ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions

CO2.jpg

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 :

Analysis: Adding More Solar, Wind Power Increases Dependence On Fossil Fuels, ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions

As the reputed world leader in green energy policy, Germany plans to eliminate nuclear power as an energy source in the next 5 years.

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:

Germany-Power-Generation-Source-2015-copy.jpg
                                           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 AmericaWhen 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.

windmill-ingredients

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:

247365-backup

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.

chopper-co2

HUMAN STUPIDITY KNOWS NO LIMITS

At least all those promised “green jobs” are being realised

green-jobs

•••

Related :

“Unreliable” Energy Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :


Stop These Anti-Coal Fanatics (Misanthropists) Now

“Incredible, to have green groups campaign to keep the poorest people poor. And to cost Australians money and jobs while doing so.”

No surprise, as Green groups are proud misanthropists who despise humans – except themselves of course.

PA Pundits - International

Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

India warns that green groups – backed with American money – are making investment in Australian mines too hard.

So what is the Turnbull Government doing to save these mines and jobs?

A highly orchest­rated, secretly foreign-funded group of Australian environ­mental activists ­oppos­ing the $16 billion Adani coalmine in Queensland has “dampened” ­Indian investment interest in Australia and received heated criticism from the federal ­Coalition and Queensland Labor governments.

CoalLoaderIndian Power Minister Piyush Goyal told The Australian yesterday the years of legal challenges to the vast Carmichael coal project, now revealed to have been funded by multi-million-dollar foundations in the US, “will certainly dampen future investments” from India…

After meeting Mr Goyal, federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan, who has previously criticised the campaign to block the Indian project, said: “We need to be able to take advantage of the demand for coal in Asia.”…

Mr Goyal…

View original post 274 more words