ANOTHER Win-Win! “Climate Talks Open Amid Anger Over Trump’s Coal Support”

“According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.”

Gold!

Watts Up With That?

Guest taunting post by David Middleton

  1. Win: President Trump announced US withdrawal from Paris climate treatyagreement joke.
  2. Win: US will use its remaining 3 years as a party to the joke as a vehicle to promote fossil fuels.

bbc_coal

Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.

It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.

Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a “solution” to climate change.

[…]

According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.
Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the…

View original post 545 more words

Advertisements

America’s Top Green – Michael Shellenberger – Pushes Nuclear Future & Calls Wind & Solar ‘The Worst for the Enviroment’

Shock news. And, how many f*ng lives and businesses have been destroyed by useless weather-dependent windmills and solar panels for the virtue-signalling climate morons to finally get it?

STOP THESE THINGS

In the climate alarmists’ worldwide crusade against carbon dioxide gas, only the most delusional still believe that wind and solar power add anything to their arsenal.

Australia is the only G20 country with a legislated prohibition on nuclear power generation. However, the combination of the Federal government’s new National Energy Guarantee (NEG) and the associated Emissions Obligation puts nuclear power firmly on the table.

As we have said repeatedly, nuclear power is the only stand-alone power generation source which is capable of delivering power on demand, without CO2 emissions being generated in the process. From a power retailer’s perspective, nuclear power is a source which is obviously capable of satisfying both its NEG obligation and its Emissions Obligations, were such a choice available.

When Alan Finkel put together his unicorns and pixie dust review of Australia’s renewable energy debacle, he managed to dismiss nuclear power in two short paragraphs.

Now that…

View original post 2,669 more words


The Obscene Cost of Australia’s Renewable Energy Debacle

WINDMILLS and SOLAR PANELS “are being built only because government is forcing people to buy it. If renewable energy were as cheap as its advocates say, it shouldn’t need government to force people to buy it via various state and federal renewable energy targets [RET].”

ANOTHER top read via STT…

STOP THESE THINGS

What a difference a 20% year-on-year hike in retail power bills can make. Add in the South Australian experience of routine load shedding and statewide blackouts. Top it off with the threat of widespread blackouts this Summer; and not just confined to SA, but likely to send Victorians back to the Victorian age and New South Welshmen scrambling for candles, too, and you have an entire Country now obsessed about power.

In the face of a self-inflicted renewable energy debacle, all of a sudden, people who couldn’t tell the difference between baseload and their elbow have become energy experts, overnight. Pundits and commentators all think they have the answer.

Unlike the Johnny-come-latelys, The Australian’s Adam Creighton has demonstrated a pretty fair grip on the greatest Commonwealth mandated rort from the very beginning. Here’s Adam.

Come together, power suppliers
The Australian
Adam Creighton
11 September 2017

Adam Smith, the great free-market economist, might…

View original post 1,718 more words


Last Man Standing: Nuclear Plants Power Texans During Deluge – Wind Turbines Automatically Shut Down During Hurricane Harvey

WEALTH, Capitalism and Technology save lives. Green energy, Socialism and Poverty kill…

STOP THESE THINGS

Texans have been in the news for all the wrong reasons, over the last week or so.

Hurricane Harvey belted the Texan coast with 130 mph (209 kph) winds and delivered a deluge of biblical proportions.

For some time now, Texas has been the pinup girl for American wind worshippers. With some 21,000 MW of nominal capacity spread over 40 projects, like everything in Texas, wind power is ‘big’.

Except, of course, when the weather turns nasty.

Modern industrial wind turbines do not operate when wind speeds hit around 25 m/s (90kph or 55mph) – Hurricane Harvey dished up a gale double that speed, and more.

In order to prevent their catastrophic disintegration (as seen in the video below) Texas’s turbines downed tools, en masse, (as they are deliberately designed to do) leaving the critical work of providing power to storm battered Texans to its fleet of nuclear power plants.

View original post 1,049 more words


The Cost Of Going Green: Taxpayers Hit With A $60Bn Power Bill

Screen Shot 2017-09-01 at , September 1, 6.14.05 PM

The cost of a renewable energy push has been revealed | The Australian

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers

***

UPDATE on the cost to the taxpayer of politicians crazed obsession with global warming theory and the green faith, leading to the mad push for renewable unreliable energy.

Via The Australian :

Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, about twice what the crumbling car industry received over 15 years and enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.

The government’s large and small-scale renewable energy ­targets, which will compel energy retailers to buy 33 terawatt hours of wind, solar and hydro energy by 2030, will deliver about $45bn of subsidies to renewable energy producers over 20 years, according to analysis by The Australian.

The grab bag of direct subsidies from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation — which have spent or lent concessionally, respectively, $870 million in grants since 2010, and $4.3bn since 2013 — are on top of that.

Meanwhile, the proposed clean energy target arising from the government’s Finkel review, would mandate a further 33TWh of ­energy from renewable sources, costing an extra $11.3bn over the 10 years to 2030.

Government MPs yesterday sounded the alarm over the subsidies and called for clarity over government plans for a new coal-fired power station.

The chairman of the Coalition backbench committee for energy, Craig Kelly, described the costs of the subsidies as an “appalling waste” resulting from an “ideological rush to renewables”.

“No one will ever be able to compute the full opportunity cost of the alternate productive assets that this capital could have been invested in,” Mr Kelly said.

“We already have some of the highest electricity prices in the world. And what industry will we still have if we go down this track?”

Victorian Nationals MP Andrew Broad, chairman of the standing committee on the environment and energy, said the RET should be scrapped to allow renewables to compete on merit.

“To spend all that money and still have expensive power prices means the settings are all wrong,” Mr Broad said.

The Productivity Commission found the automotive industry received the equivalent of about $30bn of industry assistance between 1997 and 2012. It estimated up to 40,000 people might lose their jobs following the withdrawal of Toyota, Holden and Ford as carmakers in Australia, including job losses along the supply chain.

The 39 renewable energy projects under construction or being completed this year have created 4400 jobs, according to the Clean Energy Council’s latest figures.

ACIL Allen Consulting chief executive Paul Hyslop yesterday told a parliamentary inquiry that it was more cost-effective to hold off any investment decisions in low-emissions technologies under renewable energy schemes until the “last possible minute”.

“Solar costs have probably fallen 75 to 80 per cent in the last six or seven years,” Mr Hyslop told the energy and environment committee. “If we had not done anything seven years ago and today we then did all those things, we could have … two to three times as much solar (energy generation) in roofs for the same amount of investment over that period.

“If you think that the cost of ­renewables and low-emissions technology is falling rapidly, absolutely put it off for as long as possible.”

The Victorian government last week announced a 25 per cent RET by 2025, following South Australia’s 50 per cent target by 2025 and a 100 per cent target in the ACT.

Economist Geoffrey Carmody, a founder of Deloitte Access Economics, suggested solving the “trilemma” of low-emissions, reliable and low-cost energy should include nuclear power. The South Australian royal commission into nuclear power put the cost of a large-scale nuclear reactor at $9.3bn.

“If we sweep nuclear energy off the table in favour of renewables, achieving these three conflicting objectives with one instrument — renewable energy — is numerical nonsense,” Mr Carmody said.

Australia is the only G20 country to have banned nuclear power.

Mr Broad suggested yesterday that to provide investment certainty, the government could consider setting a higher emissions intensity threshold of 0.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour as part of any clean-energy target for some projects — the terms of which could be reviewed after a set period of eight to 10 years.

“I think we’ve got to do something to create certainty in the market,” Mr Broad said.

He said a lower threshold of 0.6 tonnes — the scenario modelled by chief scientist Alan Finkel in his review into the national electricity market — would not cover a new coal-fired power station, although Dr Finkel has said the difference between the two thresholds would “not be substantial”.

The construction of a new 1000MW high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power station has been estimated at $2.2bn according to an analysis compiled by power and energy specialists GHD and Solstice Development Services.

It found such a plant would deliver the cheapest electricity on the market.

Malcolm Turnbull this week opened the door to using finance from a $5bn federal infrastructure fund to help build a coal-fired power station.

Mr Kelly said yesterday a decision on a new plant needed to be made urgently because the 45-year-old Liddell coal-fired power station near Muswellbrook, NSW, was scheduled for closure in 2022 and it would take at least five years to build a new plant. He said it made sense for any new coal-fired power plant to be built in NSW instead of Queensland.

Queensland LNP leader Tim Nicholls is pledging to fast-track a project using the latest high-energy low-emissions technology to be built and run by the private sector.

“We basically need a decision on that by early next year,” Mr Kelly said. “A HELE plant would favourable.”

The cost of going green: taxpayers hit with a $60bn power bill | The Australian

 

Former Labor Party minister, Graham Richardson, on the money:

Every sector in our economy is struggling to cope with [electricity] prices that have almost doubled during the past five years … For the past few years many pensioners have sacrificed heat in winter and airconditioning in summer. Now low to middle-income families are frantically trying to reduce their power bills as well.

While all of this is happening, our Prime Minister sits down with the chiefs of the electricity companies to ask them to be nice to their clients and offer them the cheapest possible options. The problem is that in a free-market capitalist economy, private business is supposed to maximise profits for shareholders. I, for one, will not hang by the neck waiting for my friendly electricity retailer to offer me a way of paying them less. Surely Malcolm Turnbull has got something better to do to fill in his diary.

Andrew Bolt:

What a colossal waste – and to think that simply building the reactors would have given us more reliable power, too: “Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, … enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.

$60 BILLION OF WARMIST WASTE | Herald Sun

Billions and billions more of taxpayers hard-earned money wasted on fake fixes to a fake catastrophe.

Insane.

•••

Related :


“Green” Germany’s Emissions Keep Rising

“Germany’s energiewende has propped up renewables at extraordinary cost to consumers, but it has also shuttered the country’s nuclear reactors. That decision, made largely in response to the 2011 Fukushima disaster, doomed a fleet of zero-emissions baseload [nuclear] power suppliers. And, because solar panels and wind turbines can only supply power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, those binned reactors had to be replaced by fossil fuels.

And not just any fossil fuels: Germany has been ratcheting up its consumption of domestically produced lignite, a particularly dirty variety of coal.

“It’s hard to argue that Germany is any better off for having implemented the energiewende.”

Ironically, Greenpeace legislators within the German parliament killed German nukes off based on Fukushima hysteria, thus forcing the largest expansion of coal-fired power plants in Germany’s history !

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/green-german-lies/

Greens – Killing the Earth to “save it”.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

From The American Interest:

Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions rose last year, according to a new report. CO2 levels rose by 4 million tons in 2016 (0.7 percent), which means Berlin will have to reduce those levels by 40 million tons over the next three years in order to meet the country’s 2020 climate targets. As the FT reports, the country’s opposition Green party (who sponsored the study) is blaming an increase in vehicle miles traveled for the emissions increase:

A key reason for the increase was rising emissions in the transport sector, the Greens said. That was backed up by figures from the Federal Environment Agency, which showed carbon dioxide emissions from transport rose by 5.4m tonnes, or 3.4 per cent in 2016 — partly due to an increase in freight traffic, which expanded by 2.8 per cent. […]

The Greens also blamed a pick-up in…

View original post 258 more words


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