GREEN ENERGY FAIL – World Coal Power Development Up 43%

Coal China.jpg

The ultra-supercritical Shanghai Waigaoqiao No. 3 is one of China’s flagship high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power plants.

UNRELIABLE energy (wind/solar) proponents parrot the same mindless, groupthink propaganda about the so-called “green energy revolution” (which provides under 2% of the world’s power after trillions of dollars spent), demanding that we must “transition now!” so as to not be “left behind by the rest of the world!”.

MEMO to the misinformed …

From The New York Times

“1,600 new coal-fired power plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries.”

Coal fired power staions NYT

 

MEANWHILE, back in Australia, global warming theory obsessed politicians are giving up the countries once prized economic advantage of having cheap, reliable energy, by decommissioning and blowing up their last remaining coal-fired power plants. Greens and Labor parties even cheering about it!

Playford A Power Station Stack Felling

NPS West Coal Bunker and Tower Demolition

NPS East Coal Bunker and Coal Transfer Towers

via Augusta Power Stations – Flinders Power

 

NEIGHBOURING State, Victoria, whose Socialist Left government is also obsessed with green energy and the climate faith has closed Hazelwood coal-fired power station, which did not merely supply Victoria with a quarter of its power but also helped bail out South Australia.

ALL this destruction of Australia’s once cheap, efficient, relaible, baseload power supply has led to Australia now having some of the highest power prices in the world. South Australia officially has “the highest“!

THE world sure got the message: South Australia is closed for investment in heavy industry, and so, soon, will be the rest of Australia if they don’t learn from the dire consequences of destroying cheap power.

THE situation has become so dire in SA that the Weatherill Labor government is now spending a whopping $360 million on imported diesel generators in an attempt to maintain power supply after a summer of statewide blackouts 2016/17, which earned SA title of “the blackout capital of the world.”

 

More from The Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt:

The public is now waking up to this madness, and to the falsehoods that inspired it.

Let’s expose the five biggest.

FALSEHOOD ONE: We can afford Labor’s green energy target.

In fact, just to meet the targets set by Labor in Queensland and Victoria would force us to build 4800 wind generators at an estimated cost of $41 billion. And those states would then have a power system as dodgy as South Australia’s.

FALSEHOOD TWO: This green energy creates lots of “green jobs”.

In fact, it costs jobs. The wind power industry gives full-time jobs to just 1230 Australians, according to the Bureau of Statistics. But if the Victorian Government goes ahead with policies to close the giant Hazelwood coal-fired station, that alone would cost the jobs of 1000 Hazelwood workers.

Worse, other businesses would be hit with power price rises of up to 5 per cent, enough to probably kill the power-intensive Portland aluminium smelter, for one, with its 750 workers.

FALSEHOOD THREE: Australia will save the planet by switching to green power. In fact, cutting our emissions makes no measurable difference to global temperatures, which is why politicians refuse to say how much temperatures will fall as a consequence of the billions they are spending. Ask them yourself: for all this pain, how much will we gain? By how much will temperatures fall?

I’ve asked everyone from the Liberals’ Greg Hunt to Labor’s Penny Wong, from alarmist Tim Flannery to populist Kevin Rudd, and not one will answer.

FALSEHOOD FOUR: We are doomed if we don’t cut the temperature. In fact, the warmists’ predictions of doom keep bombing.

In 2007, Climate Council boss Flannery warned that “even the rain that falls will not fill our dams and our river systems”. In 2008, the weather bureau warned that drought could become “our new climate”. In 2012, the Australian Conservation Foundation warned it “will be less and less likely that we can feed the human population”.

But what do we see instead?

Years of good rain. Dams filling. Rivers flooding. A record world harvest of grain crops.

FALSEHOOD FIVE: the public still believes this warming scare.

In fact, even a survey for the embarrassed Climate Institute last month found just 30 per cent of Australians still believed the world was warming and humans were mostly to blame.

Most Australians are now sceptics. The great warming scare is failing, which explains the panic over South Australia’s blackout.

The lights went out. But for many Australians, a light bulb went on.

Pardon? Here were storms bringing the rains the warmists told us were gone, and switching off the green power the warmists told us would stay.

Green power, gone with the wind. 

South Australian blackout puts questions on value of wind power | Herald Sun

•••

Energy Related :

World Coal-Fired Power Surge Related :

Unreliable Energy Related :


WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy

GettyImages-103570612.jpg

SCIENCE WRITER and best-selling author Matt Ridley discusses Wind Power in a must read piece out of the Speccie…

13 May 2017

9:00 AM

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.


Matt Ridley and climate change campaigner Leo Murray debate the future of wind power:

https://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/5906048-made-in-windsor-how-the-royal-family-became-britain-s-biggest-reality-tv-show/embed/v4?eid=AQAAANNRE1mAHloA

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

•••

Related :

 


Greens Founder Calls Germany’s Renewables Policy: “an Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster”

STOP THESE THINGS

When people turn on wind power, it’s a one-way proposition: they never, ever worship these things again.

And when the convert was among those who first championed the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time, they don’t just quietly fall out of love, they tend to become the loudest critics of all; a bit like reformed smokers berating their old smoking buddies for lighting up.

One character who fits that mould is co-founder of the German Greens, Otto Georg Schily; who has just joined the growing throngs of Germans who now recognise the country’s maniacal obsession with massively subsidised wind and solar power as “an economic, social and ecological disaster”.

Germany’s Energiewende “An Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster”, Writes Top German Socialist!
No Tricks Zone
Pierre Gosselin
19 May 2017

In a referendum slated for this coming Sunday, Swiss citizens are being called to vote on a national energy strategy…

View original post 477 more words


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


Green Bans “Deindustrialising” Australia

“To underline this insanity, there is actually little evidence of dangerous man-made warming, and even less evidence that anything Australia does to its emissions will make the slightest discernible difference. Nor is there the slightest evidence of real risk from gas fracking, let alone on conventional on-shore gas drilling.

These are fake scares creating huge damage. Once again, the scaremongering is more dangerous than the scare.”

A very important read for the health, wealth and prosperity, not only for Australian society and its environment, but a lesson for the entire world.

This green energy, virtue-signalling insanity must stop.

And to think China and India are opening a new coal-fired power station every week, with thousands in the pipeline. Germany, as well, reverting back to coal after its disastrous €Triliion green-energy experiment “Energiewende” failure.

PA Pundits - International

By Andrew Bolt ~

Green energy and green bans on gas exploration are driving up power prices and killing business. Ten per cent of power generation has already been shut down and the Australian Energy Council now warns we risk “deindustrialising” Australia.

But wasn’t this always the aim of green zealots?:

A decade of political dispute and government paralysis over energy policy is to blame for wholesale electricity prices spiking this year to the equivalent of a $50-a-tonne carbon tax, the power industry warns in a submission to the government’s energy security review.

Warning that the country is facing an investment crisis in new power generation, the submission says that more than 5000 megawatts of generation, representing 10 per cent of national capacity, has been decommissioned since 2012 and is not being replaced…

The [Australian Energy Council] submission to the government’s Independent Review into the Future Security of the Nat­ional…

View original post 853 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


The facts about wind power are more awkward than Obama would admit – Booker

“Unreliable” energy update…

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/the-facts-about-wind-power-are-more-awkward-than-obama-would-adm/

A timely article from Booker today, which picks up on two of my recent posts:

I must apologise for having last week mistakenly reported that, despite the drive of the US in the Obama years to build ever more heavily subsidised wind and solar farms, the entire contribution of wind and solar to US electricity consumption is still only “less than 14 percent”.

Foolishly, I cited that figure only after a quick internet trawl. where it is quoted on various websites, including Wikipedia. Only when I subsequently referred to a more reliable source did I find that the figure was in fact absurdly exaggerated. All the US was actually getting last year for all the billions of dollars it has spent on wind and solar farms was just 5.4 percent of its electricity. Most of the rest of course came from those CO2-emitting…

View original post 202 more words