False Alarm: Book Review

By Bjorn Lomborg – Re-Blogged From WUWT

How climate change panic costs us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet

Reviewed by Thomas P. Sheahen

Danish Economist Bjorn Lomborg is already well known for eight other books at the intersection of economics and public policy. “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” published in 2001 established him as a perceptive observer of the cost of addressing the world’s environmental problems. He provided evidence to show that, with prosperity, civilization is addressing the major environmental issues.  Lomborg’s attention to the numbers hidden beneath the slogans gave his analysis a credibility that could not be brushed aside, to the chagrin of some prominent politicians and environmental organizations of the time.

Continue reading

The Excess Costs of Weather Dependent Renewable Power Generation in the USA

By edmhdotme – Re-Blogged From WUWT

These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question:

“roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the 2016 fleet of United States Weather Dependent Renewables, using conventional generation technologies, (Gas-firing or Nuclear) ? and how do those figures compare ?”.

Accordingly, the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of USA Weather Dependent Renewables as installed at the end of 2016.  It combines the comparative costs of generation technologies, published by the US Energy Information Administration in 2020 with information on the Nameplate rating of installed USA Weather Dependent Renewable installations and their actual productive power output as of 2016.  This data on Renewables performance at end 2016 is accessed from USA  Energy Information Administration, US  EIA.

Screenshot 2020-08-09 at 12.05.54.png
Screenshot 2020-08-09 at 15.22.00.png

Summary

Screenshot 2020-08-09 at 12.38.48.png

These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question:

“roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the 2016 fleet of United States Weather Dependent Renewables, using conventional generation technologies, (Gas-firing or Nuclear) ? and how do those figures compare ?”.

Accordingly, the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of USA Weather Dependent Renewables as installed at the end of 2016.  It combines the comparative costs of generation technologies, published by the US Energy Information Administration in 2020 with information on the Nameplate rating of installed USA Weather Dependent Renewable installations and their actual productive power output as of 2016.  This data on Renewables performance at end 2016 is accessed from USA  Energy Information Administration, US  EIA.

The name plate value of installed Weather Dependent Renewables in the USA amounted to ~118 Gigawatts producing the equivalent of ~30 Gigawatts in 2016.

Screenshot 2020-08-17 at 13.48.55.png

According to this costing model, the approximate USA:

  • capital cost commitment to the current USA Renewables installed is ~210 $billion:  of which the excess costs over Gas-firing is ~175$billion and ~30$billion over the costs of Nuclear.
  • long-term cost commitment of the current USA Renewables generation of ~30Gigawatts installed is ~890$billion: of which the excess costs over Gas-firing is ~750$billion and ~490$billion over the costs of Nuclear power.

These estimates show that using Weather Dependent Renewables in the USA costs ~6 times as much as using Natural Gas for electricity generation and about 1.2 – 2 times as much as Nuclear power.

The benefit of these expenditures for Weather Dependent Renewables is the replacement of about 9% of USA power gross output capacity by “nominally” CO2 neutral technologies.  Electrical power generation results in about 1/4 of the total CO2 emissions output from USA.

In 2016 the USA in total emitted ~5,000million tonnes of CO2, ~14.5% of the Global CO2 emissions.  Accordingly at ~9% of ~25% of 5,000 million tonnes, the current Renewable expenditures are being made to avert an absolute maximum of ~112 million tonnes of CO2 emissions averted across the USA.  This maximum value entirely ignores all the CO2 emissions and energy costs of Weather Dependent Renewables manufacture, installation, etc.  Thus the maximum averted CO2 emissions from USA Weather Dependent Renewables are as follows:

  • of the 2016 USA CO2 emissions ~4,950 million tonnes     ~2.2%
  • of the 2019 Global CO2 emissions  ~34,000 million tonnes     ~0.3 %
  • of the 2017 CO2 emissions growth from developing world 446 million tonnes    ~25%.

The impact of the poor productivity of Weather Dependent Renewables is shown in these two pie charts, where 29% of the Weather dependent Renewables are ~29% of installed generation but produce ~9% of the power output produced:

Screenshot 2020-08-15 at 08.00.00.png

So, the question should be asked “does the capital commitment of ~200 billion$ and the probable future expenditures of ~890 billion$ to unreliably replace ~9% of USA power output and to avert ~2.2% of USA CO2 emissions make economic good sense ?”

Comparative Costing Model for Electricity Generation Technologies

The comparative costings are derived from US  EIA data released in January 2020.

Screenshot 2020-07-18 at 07.40.41.png

The values used in this model ignore the “EIA Technological optimism factor” above, which would adversely affect the comparative costs of Offshore wind, (by about 9$billion/Gigawatt: long-term) and to a much less extent Nuclear power.  These costs are summarised and translated into $billion/Gigawatt in the table below.

The US EIA table quotes the overnight capital costs of each technology and the above table condenses the total costs of the technology when maintained in operation for 60 years expressed as $billion/Gigawatt.  A service period of 60 years is used for these comparisons as it should be close the service life of current generation of Nuclear installations.

Hopefully the comparative data above should realistically avoid the distorting effects of any Government fiscal and subsidy policies supporting Weather Dependent Renewable Energy, whereby it might be claimed that Weather Dependent Renewables can reach cost parity with conventional generation technologies.  The promoters of Weather Dependent Renewables always seem to conveniently forget their productivity differentials with conventional dispatchable power generation.

The service life allocated for Renewables used above may well be generous, particularly for Solar Photovoltaics.  The production capability of all Renewable technologies has been shown to progressively deteriorate significantly over their service life.

Recent 2020 EIA updates fully account for any cost reductions or underbids for Renewable technology, particularly those for Solar panels.  The costs of solar panels themselves may be reducing but this price reduction can only affect about 1/4 of the installation costs, these are mainly made up of the other costs of Solar installations, those ancillary costs remain immutable.

It is hoped therefore that these results give a valid comparative analysis of the true cost effectiveness of Weather Dependent Renewables.  It should be noted that unlike microprocessor technologies “Moore’s Law” cannot be applied to Solar Panels.  As the Solar energy they collect is dilute and diffuse, in order to be effective, they have to be of large scale, so the progressive miniaturisation of “Moores Law” is irrelevant to Solar PV technology.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

Notes:
    • These calculations are based on the USA installed Renewables base as of the end of 2016
    • The cost data used was published by US  EIA in January 2020 and should allow for the recent price reductions particularly for Solar PV generation
    • The US  EIA data makes the assumption that universally Solar PV productivity is 11.4% for its entire 2016 data set.
    • For the time being these calculations ignore all Offshore Wind power which is currently only a minor part of US Weather Dependent Renewable installations

The true costs associated with Weather Dependent Renewables

Only when the costings estimated from the EIA data above are combined with the actual productivity of Weather Dependent Renewables can a true comparative cost be assessed as below.  Thus these figures represent the true comparative cost / Gigawatt of the power produced by Weather Dependent Renewables installations.

Screenshot 2020-08-11 at 15.25.13.png

In addition, even these comparative figures are underestimates of the true costs of using Weather Dependent Renewables.  These results above only account for the cost comparisons for capital and running costs of the generation installations themselves and the actual electrical power generated accounting for the assessed productivity capability of each generating technology.

The costs projected here ignore the ancillary costs inevitably associated with Wind power and Solar Renewables resulting from:

  • unreliability in terms of both power intermittency and power variability
  • the non-dispatchablity of Renewables:  the wind will not blow and clouds will not clear away to order whenever needed
  • the poor timing of power generation by Renewables is often unlikely to be coordinated with demand:  for example Solar energy is virtually absent in winter even in the Southern USA, 1/9th of the output than in the summer period of lower demand
  • the long transmission lines from remote, dispersed generators, incurs both power losses in transmission and costly increased maintenance
  • much additional infrastructure is needed for access
  • the costs of back up generation is essential but is only used on occasions but has to be wastefully running in spinning reserve nonetheless
  • any consideration of electrical storage using batteries, which would impose very significant additional costs, were long-term, (only a few days), battery storage even economically feasible
  • unsynchronised generation with lack of inherent inertia to maintain grid frequency
  • Weather Dependent Renewables cannot provide a “black start” recovery from a major grid outage

Importantly in addition these cost analyses do not account for:

  • the inevitable environmental damage and wildlife destruction resulting from Weather Dependent Renewables
  • the “Carbon footprint” of Weather Dependent Renewable technologies:  they may never save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their materials sourcing, manufacture, installation, maintenance and eventual demolition.  When viewed in the round, all these installation activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels both as feedstocks for materials and  as fuels.
  • the Energy Return on Energy Invested:  Weather Dependent Renewables may well produce only a minimal excess of Energy during their service life as was needed for their original manufacture and installation.  They certainly do not provide the regular massive excess power sufficient to support the multiple needs of a developed society.  Accordingly they are parasitic on the use of fossil fuels for their existence.

Renewables K.O.-ed by EROI?

Comparative Costings for Renewable Generation technologies in USA

The table above gave a capital valuation of the current 2016 USA Weather Dependent Renewables fleet at ~200 $billion with probable ongoing costs of ~890 $billion.  Overall in USA this Renewables investment accounts for ~29% of the nameplate generation capacity but only provides ~9% of the actual power contribution.  This is approximately twice the cost of providing the same power output with Nuclear power stations and more than 11 times the cost of using Gas-firing for equivalent power generation.

Screenshot 2020-08-11 at 15.47.35

The three tables above show how the different Renewable technologies contribute to the Government mandated excess costs overall in the USA.

US Wind power is the most cost effective Weather Dependent Renewable technology.  In general it is just 10% cheaper than Nuclear power in capital spend and is only about 1.6 times as expensive in the long-term.  Onshore wind power is only about ~4.5 times more costly in capital and long-term spend than Gas-firing.  Solar PV is the least cost effective US Renewable ~3 – ~6 times more costly than Nuclear to install and 16 times more costly than Gas-firing in the long-term.  However this cost differential does not account for the problem of Weather Dependent irregular intermittency and non-dipatachability.

These significant excess costs represent the wastage imposed on the American population both via direct taxation by supporting subsidies to Weather Dependent Renewables and then also added to utility bills America wide by the Government mandates imposing Renewables on electricity generation.  That wastage amounts to a very regressive tax burden imposed on the poorest in American society.  It is leading to ever increasing US-wide “Energy Poverty”.

Comparative Participation of Individual American States

Screenshot 2020-08-11 at 16.12.25

The name plate value of  the 2016 USA Weather Dependent Renewable installations reported by EIA  is shown below.  The principle states involved with Weather Dependent Renewables in the USA (49) and their local commitments amounting in total to ~118GW installed are shown graphically below.

Screenshot 2020-08-11 at 16.23.07

The scale of the commitment to Weather Dependent Renewables by State is shown below:

Screenshot 2020-08-11 at 16.25.14

The comparative take-up of USA Weather Dependent Renewables by individual States in 2020 as measured by Gigawatts of nameplate capacity per million head of population is shown below.

The comparative productivity performance achieved by these principle US States is shown below.  It is notable how poor the productivity achieved is even for those Southern states with major commitments to solar power

Screenshot 2020-08-11 at 07.04.53

Cost comparisons to Gas-firing

At ~1.1bn$/ Gigawatt in capital costs and ~3.5bn$/ Gigawatt for the 60-year long-term, the use of natural gas is the most cost effective and efficient means of power generation currently available.  It should be noted that Gas-firing produces ~1/2 the CO2 emissions of Coal-firing and ~1/3 the CO2 emissions of Biomass.

These excess costs calculations indicate of the scale additional costs that burden the economies of individual US States according to the US  EIA 2020 data and recorded Weather Dependent Renewable productivity figures shown above, these total ~175 bn$ in capital costs.

Screenshot 2020-08-12 at 10.35.23.png

The long-term excess costs in comparison to the use of Gas-firing amount to ~750 bn$.

Cost comparisons to Nuclear power

At ~7 bn$/ Gigawatt in capital costs and ~16 bn$/ Gigawatt for the 60-year long-term, Nuclear power is an effective and efficient means of consistent power generation with nil CO2 emissions and low land take.  In capital cost terms for Name plate value Onshore wind power can be nominally cost competitive, however that comparison is just for total power output which does account the intermittent and variable performance of Renewable Wind power, which make real difficulties for Grid reliability.

These excess costs calculations indicate of the scale additional costs that burden the economies of individual US States according to the US  EIA 2020 data and recorded Weather Dependent Renewable productivity figures shown above, overall these total net sum of ~30 bn$ in capital costs.  However Solar photovoltaics impose significant capital cost burdens when compared with Nuclear power.

Screenshot 2020-08-12 at 10.41.00.png

The long-term excess costs in comparison to the use of Nuclear power amount to ~490 bn$.

.

Conclusions

These straightforward calculations show the scale of immediate and long-term costs associated with Weather Dependent Renewables across the USA.  They amount to a capital sum in excess of 210 billion$ and a sum approaching ~900 billion$ were they to be maintained for the long-term.  This sum achieves about ~9% of the USA gross power production.

The capital costs of replacing the full 30GW of American  Renewable generation output with reliable, dispatchable Gas-fired generation would be ~33 billion$ and the whole 600GW USA Generation capability could be replaced by Gas-firing for ~660 billion$.  CO2 emissions from Gas-firing are 1/2 those from coal-firing and about 1/3 of those from the burning of Biomass.

The benefit of these expenditures on Weather Dependent Renewables is the replacement of about 9% of USA power output capacity by “nominally” CO2 neutral technologies.  Electrical power generation results in about 1/4 of the total CO2 emissions output from the USA.

In 2019 the USA emitted ~4,950 million tonnes of CO2, ~14.5% of the Global CO2 emissions.  Accordingly, at ~9% of ~25% of 4,950 million tonnes, the current Renewable expenditures are being made to avert an absolute maximum of ~111 million tonnes of CO2 emissions averted across America.  This maximum value ignores all the CO2 and energy costs of Renewables manufacture, installation, etc.  Therefore, the maximum averted emissions from USA Weather Dependent Renewables are as follows:

  • of the 2016 USA CO2 emissions ~4,950 million tonnes     ~2.2%
  • of the 2019 Global CO2 emissions  ~34,000 million tonnes     ~0.3 %
  • of the 2017 CO2 emissions growth from developing world 446 million tonnes    ~25%

So the question should be asked “does the capital commitment of ~0.2 trillion$ and the probable future expenditures of ~0.9 trillion$ to unreliably replace ~9% of USA power output and to avert ~2.2% of USA CO2 emissions make economic good sense ?”

If the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly “saving the planet” from the output of the diminishing USA proportion of CO2 emissions, their actual cost, their in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability, Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation.

The whole annual USA CO2 emissions output will eventually be far surpassed just by the annual growth of CO2 emissions across China and the Developing world.

It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these USA government mandated excess expenditures in the Western world to the improvement of the Global environment and for the value of perhaps preventing undetectable temperature increases by the end of the century, especially in a context where the Developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain it’s further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades.

https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

Trying to reduce CO2 emissions, in the Western world alone, as a means to control a “warming” climate seems even less relevant when the long-term global temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia, as the coming end of our current warm and benign Holocene interglacial epoch approaches.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

The whole Weather Dependent Renewable commitment in the USA is an exercise is attempting to control Global temperature by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions in a major sector of the Western world.  These simple calculations show just how costly effecting even a marginal reduction of Man-made CO2 is bound to be.

However, as opposed to being a dangerous pollutant, by every measure, more atmospheric CO2 is benefitting life on earth by substantially increasing plant growth through fertilisation and increasing drought tolerance.  Any fraction of the minor warming we have experienced since the little ice age that is due to Man-made CO2 has also clearly been a direct benefit to agriculture and human comfort.

For additional tables and graphics detailing State by State excess cost calculations and the growth of Weather Dependent Renewables:  see

The Context in 2020

In spite of all the noisy Climate Propaganda of the past 30 years, in Spring 2020 the world was faced with a different but very real economic emergency arising from the political reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic.

That emergency, with the world facing global economic breakdown as well as the death of many elder citizens, should put the futile, self-harming and costly Government mandated attempts to control future climate into stark perspective.  This real pandemic emergency and the self-harming reactions to it clearly shows how irrelevant concerns over probably inconsequential “Climate Change” in a distant future truly are.

CONTINUE READING –>

Gold Miners’ Q2’20 Fundamentals

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

The major gold miners’ stocks have skyrocketed since mid-March’s stock panic, attracting in a deluge of new capital inflows. That recently catapulted this normally-contrarian sector to extremely-overbought levels, necessitating a rebalancing correction. The gold miners are just finishing reporting their operating and financial results from the challenging last quarter. Was gold stocks’ huge upleg fundamentally justified?

The leading and dominant gold-stock benchmark and trading vehicle today is the GDX VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF. Launched way back in May 2006, GDX’s first-mover advantage has grown into an insurmountable lead. With $16.8b of net assets this week, GDX commands a staggering 31.7x more capital than its next-biggest 1x-long major-gold-miners-ETF competitor! GDX is really the only game in town.

Continue reading

Excess Costs of Weather Dependent Renewable

By edmdotme – Re-Blogged From WUWT

These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question:

“roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the present fleet of EU(28) Weather Dependent Renewables, using conventional generation technologies, (Nuclear or Gas-firing) ? and how do those figures compare ?”.

Accordingly the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of EU(28) Weather Dependent Renewables as installed at the end of 2019.  It combines the comparative costs of generation technologies, published by the US Energy Information Administration in 2020 with information on the Nameplate rating of installed EU(28) Weather Dependent Renewable installations and their actual productive power output as of 2019.  This data on Renewables performance at end 2019 is accessed from EurObserv’ER.

Screenshot 2020-07-07 at 13.36.26.png

Summary

Screenshot 2020-07-06 at 10.13.35.png

Continue reading

Silver Miners’ Q4’19 Fundamentals

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Silver Phoenix

The carnage in the silver miners’ stocks has been apocalyptic, fueled by the astounding COVID-19 stock panic.  As terrified traders frantically dumped everything and ran for the hills, silver and its miners’ stocks crashed.  That catastrophic anomaly has potentially created epic contrarian buying opportunities.  The silver miners’ recently-reported Q4’19 results reveal whether their fundamentals support a massive rebound.

As long-time silver-stock traders are painfully aware, this tiny sector is no stranger to adversity.  Only the most-hardened contrarians dare chasing the white metal’s occasional monster skyrocketings.  Back in late February, silver was rallying nicely as gold surged over $1600 on mushrooming COVID-19 fears.  But over the next 17 trading days silver collapsed 35.8%, with nearly 3/4ths of that loss in the final week alone!

Continue reading

On UK Climate Policies

By Neil Lock – Re-Blogged From WUWT

“I’d expect that some probing by independent experts into the economic calculations, and the assumptions on which they are built, might bear fruit.” But where are these calculations, and who are the unbiased experts who have quality controlled them? I couldn’t find any such calculations, or the names of any such experts. Perhaps, I thought, I’d better take a look at this myself.

So, I set out to learn as much as I could about the economic calculations which – so we’re supposed to believe – justify the extreme measures proposed, all the way up to total de-carbonization of the UK economy, to avoid alleged catastrophic damage from global warming. This essay is the result of that exercise. If it reads like a cross between a layman’s guide to the economics of global warming and a political rant, that’s because it’s both!

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #400

The Week That Was: February 22, 2020, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. [H/t Eric Wagner]

Number of the Week: £108.5 million (about $140 million) in 2018

The Scientific Method: There appears to be no clear, widely accepted definition of science or the scientific method. Professor of Applied Mathematics and philosopher Christopher Essex considers science to be an adventure. A long game of generations and part of the ascent of Man. Not just a fad invented in the 17th century. In an unpublished paper, “The Scientific Adventure,” he wrote for the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s 1905 discoveries, he stated:

“Others try to embrace it as a recipe. They say, to be scientific, do this, then do that, but not the other way around. They talk of the scientific method as if there is just one; as if scientific discovery were clean, orderly and uncontroversial, supervised by grizzled elders of authority. But the search for scientific discovery is anything but. It is messy, contentious, factional, but also wondrous, inspired, and above all serendipitous. It is human.”

Continue reading

Struggling U.S. Dairy Farmers Fight to Survive

By Associated Press- Re-Blogged From Headline Wealth

At Rosendale Dairy, each of the 9,000 cows has a microchip implanted in an ear that workers can scan with smartphones for up-to-the-minute information on how the animal is doing — everything from their nutrition to their health history to their productivity. Feed is calibrated to deliver a precise diet and machines handle the milking. In the fields, drones gather data that helps bump up yields for the row crops grown to feed the animals.

Technology has played an important role in agriculture for years but it’s become a life and death matter at dairy farms these days, as low milk prices have ratcheted up pressure on farmers to seek every possible efficiency to avoid joining the thousands of operations that have failed.

Continue reading

Excess costs of UK Weather Dependent Renewable Energy: 2018

Reposted from edmhdotme – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Summary:  2018 using Renewable Energy Foundation data

Screenshot 2019-11-22 at 13.17.15.png

In 2018 UK Weather dependent renewables generated some 7.7 Gigawatts of power from an installed fleet of ~34 Gigawatts achieving a satisfactory overall capacity factor for Renewables of ~23%.  The installed fleet cost ~84£billion in capital costs with average costs of ~11£billion/Gigawatt produced in capital costs and ~42£billion/Gigawatt produced long-term.  Because of the comparative capacity factors Offshore wind and Solar PV were roughly equivalent in capital costs at ~15£billion / Gigawatt produced and ~60£billion / Gigawatt produced over the long-term.  The direct comparison in the UK situation with similar measures for traditional generation technologies, Gas-firing and Nuclear, can be seen to be substantially lower above.

Continue reading

Gold Mid-Tiers’ Q3’19 Fundamentals

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

The mid-tier gold miners just reported their results for a phenomenal gold quarter.  In Q3’19 this metal surged after its first bull-market breakout in years, driving much-higher prevailing prices.  That should’ve led to soaring profits for these mid-tiers in the sweet spot for stock-price upside potential.  Last quarter’s results are the most important this sector has seen in a long time, a key fundamental test for gold miners.

Four times a year publicly-traded companies release treasure troves of valuable information in the form of quarterly reports.  Required by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, these 10-Qs and 10-Ks contain the best fundamental data available to traders.  They dispel all the sentiment distortions inevitably surrounding prevailing stock-price levels, revealing corporations’ underlying hard fundamental realities.

The global nature of the gold-mining industry complicates efforts to gather this important data.  Many mid-tier gold miners trade in Australia, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and other countries with quite-different reporting requirements.  These include half-year reporting rather than quarterly, long 90-day filing deadlines after fiscal year-ends, and very-dissimilar presentations of operating and financial results.

Continue reading

Roadmap 2045 – Part 4

By Rud Istvan, – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Here are links to Part 1Part 2,   Part3~ctm

This is the fourth of 6 posts dissecting SoCalEd plan for a carbon neutral service territory by 2045. It is a straightforward plan to electrify 70% of buildings. Why 70%? Because electrifying pre-existing commercial buildings beyond lighting and AC is virtually impossible.

The following SoCalEd image makes this reasonably clear.

clip_image002

Continue reading

Scam Of Offshore Wind Energy

By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The latest “renewable, sustainable” energy claims show the IEA belongs in an insane asylum

Can anti-fossil fuel policies based on climate crisis alarmism possibly get any more insane than this?

In what might be described as a pre-Halloween trick of ginormous proportions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) now asserts that “renewable, sustainable” energy output will explode over the next two decades. Certainly for onshore wind and solar energy – but especially for offshore wind, says the IEA.

“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol noted. But “wind farms” constructed closer than 37 miles from coastlines around the world, where waters are less than 60 meters (197 feet) deep, could generate 36,000 terawatt-hours (36 million gigawatt-hours or 36 billion megawatt-hours) of electricity a year, he assures us. That’s well above the current global demand of 23,000 terawatt hours, Birol and a new IEA report say.

Continue reading

Gold Miners’ Profits To Soar

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

The gold miners are likely to report blowout profits in this spinning-up Q3’19 earnings season.  Higher production, stable costs, and much-higher gold prices should combine for some super-impressive results.  That’s going to leave the still-undervalued gold miners much more attractive fundamentally, supporting bigger capital inflows and much-higher stock prices.  Q3 should prove the gold miners’ best quarter in years.

Stock prices are ultimately dependent on underlying corporate earnings.  Over the long term all stock prices gravitate towards some reasonable multiple of their underlying companies’ profits.  Herd greed and fear can force stock prices to disconnect from fundamentals for some time, but eventually they trump sentiment.  So there’s nothing more important for stock-price-appreciation potential than foundational profits.

Most of the major gold miners trade in the US or Canada, and thus are required to report their results quarterly.  The SEC deadline for filing 10-Q quarterly reports is 40 calendar days after quarter-ends, or November 9th for the recently-finished Q3’19.  The major gold miners tend to report in the latter end of that window.  The definitive list of them comes from the leading gold-stock trading vehicle and benchmark.

Continue reading

Wind Farm Back-of-the-Envelope Economic Analysis

By Larry F. Brown, PhD – Re-Blogged From WUWT

We visited a wind farm in southern Utah recently. I’ve always been curious about the costs, profitability, and physical size of these things as well as the footprint and environmental impact. I had 3 meetings with the man in charge of maintenance of the wind farm, a landowner who leases land accommodating 4 of the turbines, and a man who works in the industry in Colorado – and did some internet/newspaper research.

The maintenance superintendent told me they have 27 towers, that the installation cost was about $2 million each, and that each turbine is rated at 2.3 megawatts/hr but produces an average of 1.3 megawatts/hr (= 1,300 kW/hr). The blades are 187 ft long so the total height is nearly 400 feet high, and the tower at the base is about 13 ft in diameter encapsulated in huge quantity of concrete. The project pays about $1 million in taxes to the community each year and has a 20-year lease.

Continue reading

Why Can’t America Fill a Pothole?

By Kyle Smith – Re-Blogged From Prager Universty

Why can’t America build or repair infrastructure on a par with countries in Europe or Asia? Why are our bridges, roads, and airports not what they should be? Aren’t we the richest and most technologically savvy country in the world? Who or what is holding us back? Kyle Smith of National Review has the surprising (and frustrating) answer.

Please watch the Video.

CONTINUE READNG –>

Real(ish)Things That Don’t Matter, Part Trois

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT

In Part One of this series, we looked at Peak Oil and its irrelevance to energy production and also discussed the relevance of Seinfeld. In Part Deux, we looked at “abiotic oil,” a real(ish) thing that really doesn’t matter outside of academic discussions and SyFy blogs.

Part Trois will explore perhaps the most meaningless notion to ever come out of academia: Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI or EROI depending on spelling skill). EROEI is like what Seinfeld would have been if it was written by Douglas Adams.

EROEI

EROEI is the preferred energy metric for Malthusians, environmental activists, Warmunists and proponents of uneconomic energy sources. Invention of this concept is generally credited to an ecology professor…

Continue reading

Nonmonetary Cause Of Lower Prices

By Keith Weiner – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

Over the past several weeks, we have debunked the idea that purchasing power—i.e. what a dollar can buy—is intrinsic to the currency itself. We have discussed a large non-monetary force that drives up prices. Governments at every level force producers to add useless ingredients, via regulation, taxation, labor law, environmentalism, etc. These are ingredients that the consumer does not value, and often does not even know are included in the production process. However, these useless ingredients can get quite expensive, especially in industries that are heavily regulated such as health care.

What Force Pushes Prices Down?

There is another non-monetary force, and this one is pushing prices down. Producers are constantly finding useless ingredients that they can remove. In the research for his Forbes article on falling wages, Keith discovered that dairy producers found ways to eliminate 90% of the ingredients that go into producing milk between 1965 and 2012. For example, they reduced by two thirds the labor hours that support each cow.

Continue reading

New Inflation Indicator

By Keith Weiner – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

Last week, we wrote that regulations, taxes, environmental compliance, and fear of lawsuits forces companies to put useless ingredients into their products. We said:

“For example, milk comes from the ingredients of: land, cows, ranch labor, dairy labor, dairy capital equipment, distribution labor, distribution capital, and consumable containers.”

There are eight necessary ingredients, without which milk cannot be produced.

Continue reading

What Causes Loss Of Purchasing Power

By Keith Weiner – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

We have written much about the notion of inflation. We don’t want to rehash our many previous points, but to look at the idea of purchasing power from a new angle. Purchasing power is assumed to be intrinsic to the currency. We have said that the problem with the word inflation is that it treats two different phenomena as if they are the same. One is the presumed effect of rising quantity of dollars. The other is the effect of rising regulatory and tax burdens.

Let’s use milk as an example. Suppose milk was $1 per gallon. Many would say that a dollar is worth one gallon of milk. Or, alternatively, a dollar’s purchasing power is one gallon of milk. Suppose that later, the price of milk goes up to $2. Then, people say that the dollar’s purchasing power falls by 50%, to half a gallon of milk. Regardless of what you call it, everyone would agree that the dollar buys less than it did.

Until now. Let us explain.

Continue reading

An Assessment of the 4th National Climate Assessment

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Volume II is out and generating a lot of discussion. Volume II, Impacts Risks and Adaptation in the United States to climate change can be downloaded here (Reidmiller, et al. 2018). Volume I, published last year, on the physical science behind the assessment is here (Wuebbles, et al. 2017).

The mainstream media (MSM) is breathlessly reporting about it using the following template or something similar:

“[Volume II] of the Fourth National Climate Assessment shows how [America/city/state/poor/people of color/old people/young people, etc.] are already feeling the effects of climate change from [wildfires/droughts/floods/disease/hurricanes/etc.].

Continue reading

Gold Miners’ Q3’18 Fundamentals

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

The major gold miners’ stocks remain mired in universal bearishness, largely left for dead.  They are just wrapping up their third-quarter earnings season, which proved challenging.  Lower gold prices cut deeply into cash flows and profits, and production-growth struggles persisted.  But these elite companies did hold the line on costs, portending soaring earnings as gold recovers.  Their absurdly-cheap stock prices aren’t justified.

Four times a year publicly-traded companies release treasure troves of valuable information in the form of quarterly reports.  Companies trading in the States are required to file 10-Qs with the US Securities and Exchange Commission by 40 calendar days after quarter-ends.  Canadian companies have similar requirements at 45 days.  In other countries with half-year reporting, many companies still partially report quarterly.

Continue reading

At IPCC talks Trump Administration emphasizes scientific “uncertainty” and “value of fossil fuels”… MAGA!

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT

From the No Schist Sherlock files of the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America…

Top researchers are huddled with government officials in South Korea this week to confront the scientific consensus that maintaining a safe global climate will require immediate and aggressive action… Continue reading

Germany’s Energiewende Program Exposed as a Catastrophic Failure

By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From WUWT

An audit of the EU’s leading climate alarmism energy policy program concludes that Germany’s Energiewende is a colossal and hugely expensive debacle.

EU climate alarmist champion Germany has its Energiewende program exposed as a catastrophic failure with enormous costs

Continue reading

Antibiotics for Appendicitis? Surgery Often Not Needed

By Associated Press – Re-Blogged From Newsmax Health

When emergency tests showed the telltale right-sided pain in Heather VanDusen’s abdomen was appendicitis, she figured she’d be quickly wheeled into surgery. But doctors offered her the option of antibiotics instead.

A new study from Finland shows her choice is a reasonable alternative for most patients with appendicitis. Five years after treatment with antibiotics, almost two-thirds of patients hadn’t had another attack.

Continue reading

Unaffordable Green Energy: Charity Begs for More Volunteer Knitters, to Help Poor People Survive Winter

By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT

h/t JoNova – According to the charity KOGO, green energy champion Victora, Australia is experiencing unprecedented demand for charity provided warm woolies to help poor people who can no longer afford to heat their homes.

Continue reading

Solar Electricity Installations Look Like a Gravy Train.

[A regular reader from Melbourne, Australia has this analysis of PV Panel home installation costs. BTW, today’s currency conversion rate is 1 USD = 1.36418 AUD. -Bob]

By tonytran2015 – Re-Blogged From Survival Tricks

With electricity price running out of control, anticipated to hit 40c/kWh in the near future, I have to consider investing in a home system of Solar Panels to reduces my expenditure. The good news is there are some Solar Panels on sale at $150 per square meter and my friend can install them for me at a cost of $150 per square meter. So I drew up the following financial analysis for the prospective installation of 1m2 of panel. The results are quite surprising: Solar electricity is not matured enough to be economically competitive. The Green actions by Australian Governments are mostly a gravy train with well connected, greedy people already having First Class seats on it.

Continue reading

States Rush to Rein In Prescription Costs, and Drug Companies Fight Back

By Robert Pear – Re-Blogged From NY Times

States around the country are clamping down on pharmaceutical companies, forcing them to disclose and justify price increases, but the drug manufacturers are fighting back, challenging the state laws as a violation of their constitutional rights.

Even more states are, for the first time, trying to regulate middlemen who play a crucial role by managing drug benefits for employers and insurers, while taking payments from drug companies in return for giving preferential treatment to their drugs.

Image
Twenty-four states have passed 37 bills this year to curb rising prescription drug costs, according to Trish Riley, the executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy.CreditJulio

Continue reading

Gold-Stock Summer Lows

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From http://www.Gold-Eagle.com

The gold miners’ stocks have been drifting sideways to lower like usual in their summer doldrums. They are likely near their major seasonal lows ahead of a strong autumn rally, a great buying opportunity. Gold rebounding higher will be the primary driver fueling the gold-stock advance, dispelling today’s bearish psychology. And strong Q2 production growth will likely play a sizable role in restoring favorable sentiment.

Market summers have long been gold’s weakest time of the year seasonally. Junes and early Julies in particular are simply devoid of the big recurring demand spikes seen during most of the rest of the year. With traders vacationing to take advantage of warm sunshine and kids being out of school, markets take a back seat. So there’s no outsized gold buying driven by income-cycle or cultural factors this time of year.

Continue reading

Soaring Fuel Costs, Falling Crop Prices Punish Global Farmers

By Thomson Reuters – Re-Blogged From Newsmax

Farmers worldwide are feeling the pinch as fuel costs rise to near four-year highs just as they plant and harvest their fields, eroding agricultural income already hamstrung by depressed crop prices.

The agricultural sector from the United States to Russia, and Brazil to Europe, is seeing profits harmed by the rise in diesel prices. The global oil benchmark, Brent crude, touched $80 a barrel for the first time since late 2014 on Thursday.

Continue reading

Nuclear Power Subsidies Threaten Wind and Solar Power… Proof That Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

NukeLifeline

The push to save U.S. nuclear plants for the sake of fighting climate change is threatening support for the bread and butter of clean power: wind and solar.

Continue reading

Gold Miners’ Q2’16 Fundamentals

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From http://www.Gold-Eagle.com

The gold miners’ stocks have skyrocketed this year as investors started returning to this long-abandoned sector. Many have tripled, quadrupled, or even quintupled since mid-January alone! But are such epic gains fundamentally justified? Much insight into this crucial question for investors can be gleaned from the gold miners’ latest quarterly financial and operational results. Their Q2 reports just finished coming in.

Companies trading on the US stock markets are required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to file quarterly earnings reports four times a year. For normal quarters that don’t end fiscal years, these 10-Q reports are due 45 calendar days after quarter-ends. They are a great boon to financial-market transparency and investors seeking to understand companies, yielding a treasure trove of information.

The gold miners are no exception, so about 6 weeks after quarter-ends I eagerly look forward to digging into their latest quarterly reports to see how they’re faring. And the just-reported second quarter of 2016 proved an exceedingly-strong one for gold stocks. Their benchmark HUI NYSE Arca Gold BUGS Index soared 38.4% higher in Q2 on a mere 7.4% gold rally! Gold stocks’ 5.2x upside leverage to gold was extreme.

The gold stocks began 2016 at fundamentally-absurd price levels relative to gold, the overwhelmingly-dominant driver of their profits and hence ultimately stock prices. Coming out of mid-January’s crazy 13.5-year secular low, the gold stocks were certainly overdue to soar in a massive mean-reversion rally. But with the HUI skyrocketing 182.2% at best in just 6.5 months by early August, the gains have been huge!

Continue reading

Gold Miners’ Strong Q3 Results

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From http://www.Gold-Eagle.com

The beleaguered gold-mining sector continues to be plagued by monumental universal bearishness.  Nearly everyone assumes the gold miners are doomed, that they can’t survive for long in a sub-$1200-gold environment.  But this belief is totally wrong, a consequence of extreme fear’s fog of war.  The gold miners’ underlying earnings fundamentals remain very strong, as evidenced by their recent Q3 results.

In all the stock markets, corporate profits ultimately drive stock prices.  Because a stock simply represents a fractional stake in its underlying company’s future earnings stream, all stock prices eventually revert to some reasonable multiple of those profits.  These earnings are truly the only fundamental driver of stock prices.  All deviations from righteous valuations based on profits are just the temporary products of herd sentiment.

The gold stocks are suffering such an extreme psychological anomaly today, drowning in mind-boggling depths of popular fear and despair.  The leading HUI gold-stock index just slumped to a brutal new 13.3-year secular low this week!  The apathy and hate for this sector is nothing short of astounding.  Anyone masochistic enough to make a bullish contrarian case on gold stocks will be peppered with scathing ridicule.

But in the midst of any universal sentiment extreme, prudent investors and speculators must disconnect from the herd emotions to take a rational look at the underlying profits fundamentals.  And there is zero doubt today that prevailing gold-stock prices are truly fundamentally absurd.  The last time gold stocks were priced at these levels per the HUI ages ago in July 2002, the gold price was merely trading around $305.

Continue reading