Wind Power–Some Basic Facts

By Paul Homewood – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

We see many glowing articles about wind power, and renewable lobbyists, such as Renewable UK, are often given undue space in the media to peddle mistruths.

This article is designed to lay out some of the basic facts. It will naturally concentrate mainly on the UK, but I believe it will have relevance elsewhere too.

 

Continue reading

Advertisements

Saying No to Pipelines Won’t Help Struggling Families, Solutions Will

By David Holt – Re-Blogged From Newsmax

Everything is increasing for the low and middle class.

Housing-related costs are up because of a severe lack of inventory. So, too, are health care costs, because there aren’t enough affordable coverage options. Even car loans are reaching a breaking point with high-interest, subprime loans that more and more people are defaulting on.

We know these truths well because they’re widely reported, constant go-to talking points for lawmakers, locally and federally.

And these trends hurt those on a fixed budget, like the elderly. They also adversely impact those who can least afford to pay more, like families and households living at or below the poverty line with little or no wiggle room in their already razor-thin budget for even the slightest increase in costs.

Continue reading

Oxfam’s Climate Warriors Declare War on Poor People

By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Oxfam have written a report which claims coal power will create more poverty. In my opinion this claim is a disgusting direct attack on the coal fired industrialisation, jobs and opportunities currently lifting a growing number of people out of chronic poverty in Asia and Africa.

Energy Use 2010-2015

Energy Use for Aluminium Smelting 2010-2015. Source World Aluminium Institute

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #259

By Ken Haapala, President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

Sea Level Rise: One disturbing activity by some government entities is using the highly speculative projections of future sea level rise to frighten the public The purpose appears to be to promote the false belief that humans can stop sea level rise by limiting or controlling carbon dioxide emissions. A common trick is using the widely ranging projections of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These projections are based on global climate models that have not been validated, and use of a few highly questionable studies based on a small sample of occurrences that cannot be generalized, globally.

In his presentation at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9), former NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller highlighted some of the difficulties in arriving at accurate estimate of global sea level rise. Even satellite measurements have significant errors, containing significant noise from wave action near the coast lines.

Wysmuller states that we have three different metrics for estimating sea levels: 1) tidal gages with an average of 1.7 mm per year; 2) TopeX/Poseidon/Jason 1 & 2 satellites with a rise of 3.1 mm per year; and ENVISAT satellite with a rise of 0.5 to 2.5 mm per year. Importantly, all the sources indicate linear trends!

Continue reading

The Cruelest Tax Of All

[This is a companion piece to the previous post.]

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

A “progressive” tax is one where the wealthier you are the higher percentage of tax you pay. On the other hand, I’ve said before that a tax on energy, the so-called “carbon tax”, is one of the most regressive taxes available. It is the reverse of progressive, it hits the poor the hardest. This is because poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on energy than do rich people.

Someone challenged me on this claim about energy taxes the other day, and I realized I believed it without ever checking it … bad Willis, no cookies. So of course, having had that thought I had to take a look.

Continue reading

Economic Cost Of The Social Cost Of Carbon

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From Skating Under The Ice

The unscientific enterprise called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a thinly disguised political attempt to justify some kind of a “carbon tax”. Of course calling it a “carbon tax” or the “social cost of carbon” is doublespeak, or perhaps triplespeak. It is doublespeak because the issue is carbon dioxide, not carbon. What they are talking about taxing is not carbon but CO2. (In passing, the irony of a carbon-based life form studying the “social cost of carbon” is worth noting …)

It is triplespeak because in the real world what this so-called “carbon tax” means is a tax on energy, since the world runs on carbon-based fossil fuel energy and will for the foreseeable future.

This energy tax has been imposed in different jurisdictions in a variety of forms—a direct carbon tax, a “cap-and-trade” system, a “renewable mandate”, they come in many disguises but they are all taxes on energy, propped up by the politically driven “Social Cost of Carbon”.

Continue reading

Energy and Society from now until 2040

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

ExxonMobil released its 2017 Outlook for Energy, A View to 2040 in mid-December. David Middleton has written that the report reveals wind and solar will supply a whopping 4% of global energy by 2040! He also reports that wind and solar capacity will grow, but we will only be able to utilize 30% of the wind capacity and 20% of the solar capacity due to their intermittent nature. This is true, but the report has much more to say and this year the nomination of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State makes it even more important. Here we will cover some the other numbers in the report.

The cost of energy is closely correlated to standard of living. In addition, it has often influenced major political decisions, like Germany’s decision to invade Russia or Japan’s decision to bomb Pearl Harbor in World War II. Figure 1 shows the relationship between per capita GDP (one standard measure of standard of living) and annual per capita electricity consumption for 218 countries in the CIA Factbook. Excluding the anomalous countries listed in the upper right of the figure the R2 is acceptable. The least squares line suggests that each 0.2 kWhr/person of electricity consumed annually can raise GDP by one dollar per person. Obviously, other factors are important also, but the trend suggests that per capita GDP is positively influenced by the electricity consumed or that countries with a higher standard of living use more electricity.

Continue reading