Reality Is An “Industry Talking Point”

During cold nights homeless shelters fill up with people who can’t afford fuels to keep warm. They flock to locations powered by fossil fuels, in order to stay alive. Progressives want to put everyone in that same boat, dependent on government shelter to stay alive.

Thank God for fossil fuels which keep us warm, happy, independent and healthy. Progressives can’t stand people being warm, happy, independent  and healthy, so they think up a million mindless excuses to hurt other people – like “global warming”

Progressives call this an “industry talking point.”  They say that climate skeptics are keeping them from developing imaginary green energy via some magical witchcraft.

The reality is that progressives can’t do anything constructive , and won’t do anything constructive – because they are just another hate group. And global warming provides them another excuse to hate the productive people of the world, while pretending to be concerned about something.

Senator Whitehouse could turn his tiny little Democratic state into a green energy showcase and prove to the world that it can be done. But he doesn’t, choosing instead to simply spew vitriol at climate skeptics.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Reality Is An “Industry Talking Point”

  1. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for using your God-given talents for the benefit of the world’s deeply troubled society.

    1. This British MP discovered the truth about consensus science:

    https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/its-the-sun-wot-dun-it/

    2. Here is background information on the international alliance promoting the AGW fable:

    http://globelegislators.org/about-globe/24-history

  2. gator69 says:

    Another Greenie destroyed by Tony’s daily Bucket-o-reality…

  3. Chris Barron says:

    “During cold nights homeless shelters fill up with people who can’t afford fuels to keep warm”

    Is this the same as saying that people with homes who cannot afford to heat them are having to spend the night in homeless shelters instead ?

    • nielszoo says:

      … and it would be the Progressives that are making utility rates “necessarily skyrocket.” How many of the homeless (or even those who could pay the bills) would be dead this winter if they had relied on the Condor Cuisinarts to provide energy for heat? Hell, I’ll even let you add solar. How many would die on a January night in a dead calm stationary high pressure cold cell at around 10°F? Give or take 5,000 please.

      • Chris Barron says:

        “How many of the homeless (or even those who could pay the bills”

        For a start, none of those who could pay their bills. Unless they were stupid enough to default

        • Gail Combs says:

          If the lack of wind/sun causes a blackout then everyone who does not have a wood stove (now being banned in the USA) freezes. Even central oil or natural gas heat needs electric for the ignition and fan. Living in New England I have seen plenty of days below minus 30 °F (minus 35 °C) At those temperatures it does not take long for the house to cool to below freezing with the possibility of frozen pipes. Many people have died in New England from using ventless kerosene heaters. To the point they are banned in Mass. (I have one here in N.C. where they are not yet banned)

          … Unvented combustion units are not recommended for use inside your home, as they introduce unwanted combustion products into the living space, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and water vapor. The units also deplete the air in the space where they are located. Most states have banned unvented kerosene heaters for use in the home and at least five have banned the use of unvented natural gas heaters….
          http://www.suttonma.org/Pages/SuttonMA_Fire/heaters

          Electricity demand hits highest this winter – as wind power slumps to its lowest:
          Power demand hit its highest level this winter on Monday, but wind farms met just one per cent of the UK’s needs

          ….Earlier on Monday wind output had dropped even lower, generating just 354 megawatts at 2pm, or 0.75 per cent of Britain’s needs – the lowest seen during any period this winter.

          The analysis will fuel concerns that despite receiving billions of pounds in subsidies, Britain’s wind farms cannot be relied upon to keep the lights on when they are needed the most…..

          On average, UK wind farms produce about 28 per cent of their theoretical maximum power output.

          But critics warn that cold snaps when demand soars can often coincide with periods when the wind doesn’t blow.

          They argue that Britain’s energy security will become ever more precarious as old coal and gas power plants are closed and the country becomes more reliant on intermittent wind farms.

          <b.Dr Lee Moroney of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank critical of wind farms, said: "Low wind speeds frequently accompany low temperatures as happened yesterday….

          A report to Parliament says the same thing.

          Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Lords Select Committees > Economic Affairs > Economic AffairsThe Economics of Renewable Energy – Economic Affairs Committee – Contents

          Supplementary memorandum by E.ON UK

          REQUIREMENT FOR THERMAL GENERATION TO BACK-UP WIND CAPACITY

          …Correlation between wind output, season and time of day, and with electricity demand

          5. The extent to which wind speed, and thus output from wind generation, correlates with periods of high electricity demand is important in assessing the extent to which we can rely on wind generation to meet winter peak electricity demand. Winter is generally windier than the summer, with the median output for a winter day higher than in the summer. However, on the coldest days (with temperatures below zero), there tends to be little to no wind, corresponding to winter anti-cyclones. There is an increased risk of very low wind speeds, with wind generation output less than 10% of theoretical maximum, on high demand days.….
          10. To assess the extent to which investment in wind capacity will be able to replace thermal plant on the system while ensuring that peak demand can be met at the same level of reliability, we need to assess how much wind capacity on the system can be relied on to meet peak demand at a dependability of 95%. Our assessment of winter wind generation data in 2007[5] indicates that the system operator could rely on 8% of total UK wind capacity to meet winter peak demand at the same level of dependability as thermal plant. On this basis, if the UK required, say, 40,000MW of wind capacity to meet its renewable target by 2020, only 8% of this renewable capacity (3,600MW) could be relied on to meet winter peak demand. This would avoid the need to build 3,600MW of new thermal plant but the remaining 36,400MW of renewable capacity would need to be “backed-up” by thermal plant to meet winter peak electricity demand in 2020….

          11. This assessment is consistent with other studies carried out in the UK and Germany[6], where there is extensive experience of operating grids with large volumes of onshore wind. However, for the UK, the calculation should be refined in the light of a more detailed assessment of the actual wind portfolio likely in 2020, further analysis of the correlation between wind speed and demand and an analysis using data over a longer period, but we believe the broad implications for future generation requirements will remain valid. We recommend that the issue is explored in more detail as part of the Government’s forthcoming consultation on delivery of the UK’s share of its renewable targets.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The question Gail was about how many people would die in homeless shelters, even those who could pay their bills.

          My response was that those who could pay the bills were unlikley to be among the dead.

          It is a simple matter of logic.

          Now take your expensive nuclear away…thanks….

          Coal is past it’s peak, the price for coal will be a lot higher in 15 years time and that is something which you are reluctant to admit.. Obviously it undermines your whole argument if you admit that

          Or can you guarantee the price of coal for the next 30 years will be low ? Gail must think that you can have fixed production costs for 30 years, in a world where workers wages must rise annually and where operational costs rise with them

        • Doug says:

          “That was 1 year ago….the price has begun to rise again.”
          HAHAHHA! Natural gas prices have been trending down for nearly a decade.
          http://geology.com/articles/natural-gas-prices/
          Of course you’re used to graphs that say it’s getting warmer so you might have trouble with that page.

          Oil is cheaper now than a decade ago. The only time it was cheaper during the decade was a brief window during the housing crash.
          http://www.fedprimerate.com/crude-oil-price-history.htm

        • Chris Barron says:

          Back at you Doug, nobody mentioned gas

          Can we get 100% of our electricity from gas ? no, there is not enough production volume available.

          Is gas a secure fuel ? not in the UK, where we have to import the majority of our gas

        • Doug says:

          Sorry, Barron, the post above is a response to your idiotic post below. You seem to be saying prices are higher due to a drop in prices? That like saying it’s so cold because of global warming.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I don’t know about you Doug but I pay residential prices, which are far from immune of the effects of a fickle profit based market

          I note the link for oil prices show that whenever the price of oil has fallen low, it very soon flies up again afterwards. Every time.

        • gator69 says:

          At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that’s, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

          At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

          We aren’t going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don’t provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

          By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

          Henderson County, North Carolina

          According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 375 square miles (970 km2), of which 373 square miles (970 km2) is land and 2.2 square miles (5.7 km2) (0.6%) is water.[4] The county’s largest body of water is Lake Summit, a reservoir impounded by the Duke Power Company for hydroelectric generation.

          Henderson County is located in the Blue Ridge Mountains, but is situated in an intermontane basin formed by the French Broad River and its tributaries. The county seat is situated in a bowl surrounded by mountains. The lowest point in the county is to be found along the Rocky Broad River at approximately 1,200 feet, and the high point is located on Young Pisgah Mountain at approximately 5,200 feet. The county’s major streams are the French Broad River, Mills River, Green River, Little River, Mud Creek, Clear Creek, Cane Creek and Hungry River.

        • gator69 says:

          More from the link from which Chris cherry picked one graph…

          The Next Energy “Game Changer”?

          As natural gas from shale becomes a global energy “game changer,” oil and gas researchers are working to develop new technologies to produce natural gas from methane hydrate deposits. This research is important because methane hydrate deposits are believed to be a larger hydrocarbon resource than all of the world’s oil, natural gas and coal resources combined. [1] If these deposits can be efficiently and economically developed, methane hydrate could become the next energy game changer.

          Enormous amounts of methane hydrate have been found beneath Arctic permafrost, beneath Antarctic ice and in sedimentary deposits along continental margins worldwide. In some parts of the world they are much closer to high-population areas than any natural gas field. These nearby deposits might allow countries that currently import natural gas to become self-sufficient. The current challenge is to inventory this resource and find safe, economical ways to develop it.

          NG is abundant, cheap, and reliable. But Chris hates his neighbors and wants to see more deaths.

          Did the bird shredders reduce the cost of gasoline? 😆

          Why can’t Kerry sell bird shredders to Iran?

          Is it because it would fall on the west to pay for them?

          Why can’t bird shredders make it on their own without pick pocketing the working class?

          Why do you hate your neighbors?

          Why don’t you practice what you screech? 😆

          My offer still stands, break out your checkbook and cough up the 1.77 million pounds to hire me. Puss out much? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator reposted someone else’s opinion
          ” That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that’s, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.”

          2 points first of all
          1) 25% load factor is in disagreement with Gator’s figures, a self proclaimed truth expert
          2) 375 miles is an area measuring merely 30 miles by 12.5 miles. (or an area about 19 miles square)……if there’s one thing we have a lot of here it is wide open windy spaces which can accommodate these small farms

        • gator69 says:

          It looks like green energy isn’t so green after all.

          Scottish government figures show that millions of trees have been cut down in order to build wind turbines to help the region meet its renewable energy goals.

          The Times of London reports that more than 6,200 acres of woodland — or about five million trees — have been cut down since 2007 in order to make way for wind farms to produce renewable energy and fight global warming. But only about 1,957 acres of woodland were planted after the wind farms were built.

          Scotland wants to get 100 percent of its power from renewable, but doing so has come at a high cost to the country’s landscape. The Scottish National Party, a left-leaning party that wants to secede from the United Kingdom, has often invoked renewable energy as a path to independence.

          Conservative lawmakers have been hammering the government for its support of green energy at the expense of Scotland’s natural beauty. Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser told the Times, “the [Scottish National Party] is so blindly obsessed with renewable energy that it doesn’t mind destroying another important environmental attribute to make way for it.”

          “It’s astonishing to see that almost as many trees have been destroyed as there are people in Scotland,” said Fraser, whose party obtained these figures through a government records request.

          “The contribution of trees to our environment has been well established through the ages. I’m still waiting to see compelling evidence of the contribution windfarms make,” Fraser added. “They are an expensive and unreliable alternative, and not one that it’s worth making this level of sacrifice to accommodate. If the Scottish Government cooled its ludicrous renewable energy targets, we wouldn’t see this kind of wanton destruction and intrusion on our landscape.”

          The UK has been wrestling with the economic and environmental costs of wind power for some time now. Local governments throughout the country have blown millions of dollars on wind turbines that generate little to no electricity and can take hundreds of years to pay for themselves.

          One Welsh government-backed turbine was sited so poorly that it only generates about $8 worth of electricity every month and will take 452 years to pay for itself.

          If this project had been started when Elizabeth I was on the throne, it would only be reaching break-even point now, sixty years into the reign of Elizabeth II,” Jonathan Isaby, political director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, told the Daily Express. “It would seem that the turbine’s installation was nothing more than an obscenely expensive vanity project, with unwitting taxpayers footing the bill.”

          Wind turbines are also responsible for the deaths of millions of birds worldwide each year. In the U.S., about 573,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year. There are no bird death totals for the UK, but a rare white-throated needletail recently met its demise after flying right into a wind turbine in front of horrified bird enthusiasts.

          While there are no figures on UK bird deaths, Mark Duchamp of Save the Eagles International says that there is “most probably a massacre of eagles in the UK.”

          “The wind turbines are going to exterminate the young eagles in Scotland. So where does that leave Scotland 20 years from now?” Duchamp said.

          http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/millions-of-trees-cut-down-to-make-way-for-wind-farms/

        • Chris Barron says:

          The VAST majority of woodland which was cut down in Scotland was in managed forest areas. IE the trees were purposely planted to be harvested for wood products anyway.

          And now that land is being used for something else…it isn’t as if we need the trees to consume CO2 because high CO2 levels are not a real problem

        • gator69 says:

          Are the expendable humans also ‘managed’? 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Chis, you are in need of help…

          Sleep it off. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Good night, Buffo

        • nielszoo says:

          Do you have a reading comprehension problem? How many people who relied solely on wind and solar to keep them warm would be dead from this past winter? I assumed you were smart enough to figure out that those who could “pay the bills” were something other than homeless. Kinda dumb to pay a bill for a domicile you are not in. You are pushing an outdated technology that we quit using (except for niche applications) over a century ago and NEVER used it as dispatchable energy to keep us alive. If the NH had relied on wind and solar this past winter I’d hazard a guess and say that most of them would be dead. Especially in the urban areas where water and fuel are not available without heat and electricity.

      • Chris Barron says:

        “… and it would be the Progressives that are making utility rates “necessarily skyrocket.””

        The big myth appears again

        If the small amount of subsidy which makes up the electricity bills were removed then the prices would not return to a previous ridiculous price. As the cost of production has continued to increase exponentially with the reduction of available reserves and the rapid decline of new discoveries, utility bills would still be at levels considered to be ‘extremely high’ when compared to even 15 years ago

        Somehow the eejits believe that you can keep digging at a fixed low cost, and keep drilling at a very low cost to get your fossil fuels. Oil companies say it is the end of ‘easy oil’ and coal is close too….gas is a dependence of either or both of the above.

        The ones who feel a sense of entitlement believe that industry should never cost more tomorrow than it does today….and if it does, it’s because of ‘the man’.

        • gator69 says:

          As additional North American oil floods the market, OPEC’s ability to control prices will be challenged. According to projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, between 2012 and 2020, the United States is expected to produce more than three million barrels of new petroleum and other liquid fuels each day, mainly from light tight oil. These new volumes, plus new supplies coming on line from Iraq and elsewhere, could cause a glut in supply, which would push prices down — especially as global oil demand shrinks due to improved efficiency or slower economic growth.

          http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140750/robert-d-blackwill-and-meghan-l-osullivan/americas-energy-edge

        • Chris Barron says:

          That was 1 year ago….the price has begun to rise again.

          Didn’t last long that little oasis, did it.

          You don’t suppose that they weren’t really able to produce as much as they said they would do you ? I do.

          Shale oil became uneconomic due to the drop in oil prices…..so the prices had to go back up or the shale oil industry would collapse

          “Will plunging oil prices result in a drastic decline in U.S. shale oil production? Will the Saudis, who have stuck to their guns in refusing to scale back OPEC oil production, be the first to make their American shale-oil adversaries blink?

          Investors and oil market analysts, not to mention financial media, would like an easy answer to these questions, but the time lag between lower prices and anticipated lower production from shale oil-producing regions in the United States makes prognostication quite inexact.

          Yesterday, however, new data was released showing that the slowdown may have already arrived.

          According to DrillingInfo, an industry data firm, permits for new wells dropped 15 percent across 12 major shale formations in October, after doubling in the period since last November.”

        • gator69 says:

          Tail wagging dog story. What a genius! 😆

          I wonder what color the sky is in Chris’ world. Hard to tell, it changes with each post.

          I am paying about half for gasoline today, compared to your definition of ancient history.

          Did the bird shredders reduce the cost of gasoline? 😆

          Why can’t Kerry sell bird shredders to Iran?

          Is it because it would fall on the west to pay for them?

          Why can’t bird shredders make it on their own without pick pocketing the working class?

          Why do you hate your neighbors?

          Why don’t you practice what you screech? 😆

          My offer still stands, break out your checkbook and cough up the 1.77 million pounds to hire me. Puss out much? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          As you STILL have not proven that wind cannot survive without subsidies here, in your own numbers, don’t expect me to do it for you

        • gator69 says:

          Questions too hard for you Chris? 😆

          Dodge ball! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          What did i define as ancient history Gator with regards to petrol prices ?

          You seem to have a short memory, whenever the price fell it very quickly rose again afterwards.

          http://charts.gasbuddy.com/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=132&Areas=Canada%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G

        • Chris Barron says:

          Historic gas prices
          http://tinyurl.com/llpubes

        • gator69 says:

          Did the bird shredders reduce the cost of gasoline? 😆

          Why can’t Kerry sell bird shredders to Iran?

          Is it because it would fall on the west to pay for them?

          Why can’t bird shredders make it on their own without pick pocketing the working class?

          Why do you hate your neighbors?

          Why don’t you practice what you screech? 😆

          My offer still stands, break out your checkbook and cough up the 1.77 million pounds to hire me. Puss out much? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          £1.77 million to hire you ?

          Every person has their price, and yours was pretty low. You would switch sides for money.

        • gator69 says:

          Put your money where your loud mouth is and we will see! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          You know that i would if i had it

        • gator69 says:

          Yeah, I’m sure you would. 😆

        • Andy DC says:

          The new fracking technology has assured that oil prices will generally be low for the foreseeable future. Sure there will be spikes up in down in any market, but overall, cheap, plentiful oil is here to stay, much to the deep frustration of alarmists.

        • David A says:

          Repeating a falsehood over and over, and never learning from fact filled counter posts, is a sign of a closed mind. The volume of your posts is testament to your stubborn willful ignorance. You never respond to counter arguments except to assert, “That’s not true” as if saying the world is flat, makes it so.
          https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

        • nielszoo says:

          I get my electricity from coal. We have centuries of it available. We have even more natural gas and nuclear. I quoted your Progressive green messiah so take it up with him if you don’t care for the statement. Increasing regulations makes power cost more. Increasing taxes makes power cost more. Subsidizing the bird blenders, solar boondoggles, coal powered cars and batteries made from unicorn horn to pay back campaign donors make my taxes go up. Massive government intrusions into energy make inflation go up as it is a significant part of our economy. All of those things make it more expensive to stay warm enough not to die during a hard winter.

          On the other hand we have significant technological advances in gas, oil and even coal production that have increased (dramatically) available reserves and have driven down production costs. Only Dear Leader Obama’s restrictive regulations and lawsuits have been slowing that trend. So, I’ll continue to say that the vast majority of the increases in energy costs are to be laid on the doorstep of the Progressive in Chief and his minions.

        • Nobama says:

          Chris, it is the energy “shortage” that is a myth. There is no energy shortage. Coal is abundant in the US. Over 200 years worth. (http://www.americaspower.org/america-powered-worlds-largest-supply-coal)
          The USGS has similar figures to this article.

          The DOE and ConocoPhillips have proof of concept on a methane hydrates extraction method providing 1000 years of natural gas. This is completely Independent of oil and coal reserves, ( http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2012/05/successful-test-of-natural-gas-extraction-from-methane-hydrate-reservoir-in-the-alaskan-north-slope.html),

          and the GAO says the US has more oil in the Green River formation than all known reserves worldwide.
          http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/11387-the-green-river-formation-worlds-largest-oil-shale-deposits

          All this before we get to Thorium.

    • kentclizbe says:

      Chris,

      The “Social Services” of many cities/states/counties call them “Warming Centers:”

      http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/fss/provdrs/emerg/svcs/dfss_warming_centers.html

      • Chris Barron says:

        Of course the other side of the coin is….why not give people more welfare ?

        Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s America, and nobody deserves something for nothing

        At least in the UK those who need it get a winter fuel allowance
        https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment

        In my house which is heated to the max, with electrical devices on all over the place (mainly due to residential teenager) our dual fuel monthly energy bill is below the value of the lowest winter fuel payment…..to get the highest payment would see even our pretty wasteful household through 3 stiff winter months

        But like I say, I’m not in America

        • kentclizbe says:

          Chris: “At least in the UK those who need it get a winter fuel allowance”

          Headline: UK weather: 31,000 people DIED of the cold last winter

          http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-31000-people-died-2852677

          Don’t worry, Chris, I just drove an extra 50 miles in my SUV–doing my bit for the poor freezing wretches in Northumberland.

          “But like I say, I’m not in America.”

          And we thank the Lord every day that you’re not.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Then why are 30,000 in the UK dying a year FROM FUEL POVERTY!
          Death toll soars as cold snap hits UK
          … According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) some 28,800 people died in the fortnight ending January 23….

          Fuel poverty scandal

          Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reported that the winter death tall is expected to exceed 40,000, the highest figure for the past 15 years. Fuel poverty, particularly among the pensioners, is believed to be a contributing factor. Nearly one million senior citizens are estimated to be living in fuel poverty across the UK…..

          Chis The Wind Barron’s solution is to give away even MORE of Other People’s Money. However as Maggie Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

          Greece has already found that out the hard way. And so did Spain. Worthless renewable energy has made Spain “run out of other people’s money.” even faster because as in the USA if you drive up the cost of regulations, the cost of energy the cost of taxes and the cost of wages, companies will go else where.
          Spain’s Renewable Energy Disaster Draws to a Close

          …..
          Spain has been held up by the gullible and naïve (some might say, cynical and malign) hard-green-left as the model for our “new” energy future. Some “model”!!

          The Spaniards have thrown 100s of billions of euros in subsidies at solar and wind power, and have achieved nothing but economic punishment in return.

          The power generated is delivered at chaotic, random intervals: the sun sets every day and the wind stops blowing, just like everywhere else in the world; requiring 100% of wind and solar capacity to be matched by fossil fuel generation sources.

          As a result, in the last decade, the true cost of power has spiralled out of control. However, the Spanish government used price caps in an effort to keep prices artificially low. But that simply left taxpayers with an even greater burden to cover the massive cost of renewables subsidies (which represent a state-mandated transfer from the poorest to the richest) – add mounting government debt used to keep the subsidy stream flowing – and it can be fairly said that Spain’s energy policy is nothing short of an economic disaster.

          The much touted promise of thousands of so-called “green” jobs never materialized. No surprises there. Instead, the insane cost of subsidising wind and solar power has killed productive industries, with the general unemployment rate rocketing from 8% to 26% (and still rising) – youth unemployment is nearer to 50% in many regions….

          Spain provides the perfect “model” for any Country looking to destroy itself in blind pursuit of “green” energy ideology.

          Spanish bankruptcies hit record in first quarter of 2013

          Read Between the Lines: IMF Admits Spain is Bankrupt; Get Your Money Out While You Can “Inquiring minds with time on their hands may wish to slog through the 93 page IMF World Economic Financial Survey, Fiscal Adjustment in an Uncertain World

          In the USA the unemployment is over 22%. Since the idiots formed the Club of Rome in 1968 the number employed in WEALTH BUILDING manufacturing has slid from over 30% to under 9% (US Census data)

        • So Chris, you’re a commie, then. What a surprise.

        • NancyG says:

          “Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s America, and nobody deserves something for nothing”

          Please explain to me why anyone deserves something for nothing. I’d like to hear your reasoning.

  4. Here is a fascinating collection on global warming and homelessness:

    Climate Change Homelessness

    “Climate change is a stark, hard reality that will change all of our lives. Climate change will bring the greatest humanitarian crisis we have ever seen.”

    http://www.pinterest.com/deanbrocklehurs/climate-change-homelessness

    It includes entries on Katrina, Sandy, Fukushima, tsunamis and the rainy season in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Of all things that atmospheric CO2 is causing, earthquakes and tsunamis are the worst. Cold waves caused by global warming are the second hardest on the homeless as documented in the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/nyregion/severe-cold-moves-new-yorks-homeless-to-seek-help.html

  5. Chris Barron says:

    “But he doesn’t, choosing instead to simply spew vitriol at climate skeptics”

    It’s not as if climate skeptics refrain from spewing it too…keep a lid on it !

    • The hole is getting so deep the digger’s head disappeared and he doesn’t see out of it any more. Occasionally, a non sequitur flies out and lands on the ground. More muffled sounds of digging are heard.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Is that you down there Chris?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Interestingly enough the illustration comes from Brainwashing in Communism and in Democracy

          ….1. What is brainwashing?

          Brainwashing, or “mind control,” refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated….

          How very very appropriate.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The only person brainwashed here is you, who would have me believe that nuclear is cost effective.

          Nuclear costs the taxpayer too much, so much in fact that it negates any value from the sale of the electricity it produces

      • AndyG55 says:

        TOTAL and UTTER BULLSHIT !!

        Japan, Germany, France, US have been running nuclear for many years, very profitably.

        Its only when the moronic green agenda and idiotic scare campaigns that you represent get in the way, that things go sideways.

        Please, GTF out the way of the world’s progress. You and yours are a blight on society.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Obviously in response the barren minded Cwiss. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          “France, US have been running nuclear for many years, very profitably”

          Some European countries that have embraced renewable non-energy are not RELIANT on power from France’s nuclear power stations, but the stupidity of the green scare agenda may actually close those power stations that the whole region RELIES ON so heavily because they provide power WHEN NEEDED, not just when the wind happens to blow-hard enough.

        • AndyG55 says:

          typo !! not = now

          Some European countries that have embraced renewable non-energy are NOW RELIANT on power from France’s nuclear power stations.

  6. gator69 says:

    Chris is willing to sacrifice an entire county in NC, as well as your money, for his whirlygig religion. But not willing to pay for it.

    What a big man. 😆

    • Chris Barron says:

      Sure I’ld pay for it if I had it…. why wouldn’t I

      You would commit your people to a nuclear weight around their necks….and their children’s, and their children’s…

      • gator69 says:

        Your drunken stupor is really showing, time for bed Chris.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Oh ? so nuclear is financially viable ?

          I’m curious to know how you came to that incorrect conclusion

        • gator69 says:

          Acreage. Ever try to buy a entire county? 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Go ahead, break out the checkbook genius.

          https://www.google.com/maps/place/Henderson+County,+NC/@35.3222759,-82.5032214,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8859ea0baaf57173:0xca9ad5630283dfee

          I’m sure the 110,000 inhabitants, their homes, businesses and government assets cannot possibly be more than the cost of two acres on farmland.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Ever tried to talk about nuclear ?

          Didn’t think so.

          Anyway, according to your figures 1GW of wind requires 375 sq miles, so to meet all of the US demand 375000 sq miles are required.. Doable but too many nimbys to please

          To provide 25% of demand requires an area of 250 x 300 miles in total, or 75,000 sq miles….in a country of 3,800,000 sq miles with 81% of the population living in cities and suburbs, there is more than enough space out of town….no need to take over any country

        • gator69 says:

          This coming from the idiot whose last source called Gov Moonbeam ‘smart’! 😆

          http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/jerry-brown-smart-prepared-responds-californias-drought-emergency/

          Come on Chrissy! Break out that checkbook! What, zero balls behind your bluster? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          The real price of electricity

          Hmmm. not quite the ‘sharp increase’ which many complain about. Strange……

        • gator69 says:

          Alarmist much? 😆

          From your source…

          The major greenhouse gases that the United States emitted as a result of human activity in 20121 (and their share of total emissions) were2

          Carbon dioxide (83%)
          Methane (9%)
          Nitrous oxide (6%)
          Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (collectively 3%)
          There are other greenhouse gases that are not counted in U.S. or international greenhouse gas inventories:

          Water vapor — the most abundant greenhouse gas. Most scientists believe that water vapor produced directly by human activity contributes very little to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore, EIA does not estimate emissions of water vapor. Research by NASAsuggests a stronger impact from the indirect human effects on water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere.
          Ozone — technically a greenhouse gas because it has an effect on global temperature. However, at higher elevations in the atmosphere (stratosphere), where it occurs naturally, it is needed to block harmful UV light. At lower elevations of the atmosphere (troposphere) it is harmful to human health and is a pollutant regulated independently of its warming effects.
          Greenhouse gases are transparent to incoming (short-wave) radiation from the sun but block infrared (long-wave) radiation from leaving the Earth’s atmosphere. This greenhouse effect traps radiation from the sun and warms the planet’s surface. As concentrations of these gases increase, more warming occurs than would happen naturally.

          Come on Chrissy, you can find better propaganda than this! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Do you think Opalek is any better ?

        • gator69 says:

          Don’t know Chrissy, how does it mix with you favorite whiskey blend?

          Come on! Pay me! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Just to sumarise.

          You have no idea how to evaluate the cost of nuclear,
          You have a pathological hatred of ANY thing which gains the moniker of ‘renewable’
          The predictability by which you avoid providing mathematical proof is itself predictable
          You don’t care that your poor are dying of fuel poverty

        • gator69 says:

          Unlike you, I know the value of real estate. 😆

          And unlike you, I actually practice what I preach.

          How many acres have you returned to natural habitat?

          How many years did you spend cleaning up filthy rivers with your bare hands?

          How much garbage do you produce per week?

          How much of your income goes to feed hungry children?

          How many of your neighbors have you killed through idiotic endorsements? Ooops got me there. 😆

          Sleep it off Chris.

        • Chris Barron says:

          >Unlike you, I know the value of real estate. 😆
          But not ofnuclear power ? How odd

          >And unlike you, I actually practice what I preach.
          You haven’t done any maths to support any assertion

          >How many acres have you returned to natural habitat?
          What ? (I suspect I’m going to be getting a ‘I am a fucking hero’ speech next)

          >How many years did you spend cleaning up filthy rivers with your bare hands?
          Huh ? (Yes i can feel it coming….who’s da hero ?)

          >How much garbage do you produce per week?
          Oh blimey…now you’ve thrown me because I didn’t expect that question. In our advanced society we separate all our garbage and put it out for collection in 4 different ‘trash cans’…I would need to weigh each of the bins just before collection to get you the answer)

          >How much of your income goes to feed hungry children?
          I have 10% deducted from my wage at source by my employer as a contribution towards company supported charitable organisations. Save the children is a frequent recipient.

          >How many of your neighbors have you killed through idiotic endorsements? Ooops got me there. 😆
          When I smell the air there doesn’t appear to be the heavy stench of rotting flesh…..none yet ?

          >Sleep it off Chris.
          Frack off !

        • gator69 says:

          Unlike you, I know the value of real estate. 😆
          But not ofnuclear power ? How odd

          If you would read what others post (including me) you would see you are wrong, again. We have covered that ad ad nauseum.

          And unlike you, I actually practice what I preach.
          You haven’t done any maths to support any assertion

          Failure to address my statement. Your ‘maths’ are pure propaganda. You cherry pick industry numbers and present them as real world, just like a good little useful idiot alarmist.

          How many acres have you returned to natural habitat?
          What ? (I suspect I’m going to be getting a ‘I am a fucking hero’ speech next)

          Yet again, failure to address my question, which means you have done zip.

          How many years did you spend cleaning up filthy rivers with your bare hands?
          Huh ? (Yes i can feel it coming….who’s da hero ?)

          Yet again, failure to address my question, which means you have done squat.

          How much garbage do you produce per week?
          Oh blimey…now you’ve thrown me because I didn’t expect that question. In our advanced society we separate all our garbage and put it out for collection in 4 different ‘trash cans’…I would need to weigh each of the bins just before collection to get you the answer)

          Yet again, failure to address my question, which had nothing to do with recycling, which I do voluntarily, I am not forced to do so by Big Brother.

          How much of your income goes to feed hungry children?
          I have 10% deducted from my wage at source by my employer as a contribution towards company supported charitable organisations. Save the children is a frequent recipient.

          That is a different issue, likely tax deductible, and something most people do (Here it is known as ‘The United Way’). I asked about what you do on your own. Again, you do squat.

          How many of your neighbors have you killed through idiotic endorsements? Ooops got me there. 😆
          When I smell the air there doesn’t appear to be the heavy stench of rotting flesh…..none yet ?

          It would be difficult to smell anything over your alcoholic rot, and the answer is not one you wish to provide, as it is self incriminating.

          iSleep it off Chris.
          Frack off !

          Kill thy neighbor, wind baron.

          Chris is an obvious plant. He pretends to be anti global warming to gain our trust, in order to sell death mills.

        • David A says:

          “Frack off” ? Reason has forsaken you, but you can still shout.

  7. Andy Mirlach says:

    The dirty secret of Britain’s power madness: Polluting diesel generators built in secret by foreign companies to kick in when there’s no wind for turbines
    ttp://www.epaw.org/echoes.php?lang=en&article=n124

  8. rah says:

    Who trusts a government that is constantly meddling with data for it’s own purposes.
    Here is the latest example. They won’t even leave hurricane record data alone.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/wikipedia-rewrite-history-part-ii/

    Hurricane Camille was long recognized as the most powerful hurricane recorded to have made land fall on the mainland of the United States. Recently someone at ‘Not A Lot of People Know That’ noticed that Wikipedia had revised the maximum wind speed recorded down from previous entries. Turns out Wikipedia was revised because NOAA changed it’s data because of a program called ‘The Atlantic Hurricane Database Re-analysis Project’.
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html

    Fact: No data is safe in the hands of the US Government. Integrity, history, science, and facts, mean nothing to them. They have revised and tampered with everything from temperature records and recorded data to unemployment figures. Now it’s hurricane data.

    The country I once swore to defend has a government who’s conduct is no longer defensible.

    • gator69 says:

      It started with Katrina.

      Leftists are great at rewriting history, and lying about current events. When Katrina hit, I watched daily updates of the death toll because I knew they would be exaggerated to make Katrina and Bush look worse than they were (as if they needed to), and they did. A body here, a nursing home there… and this went on for weeks. I kept a mental tally and remember getting up into the four hundreds, then suddenly there was reporting of over 1800 deaths, and I have seen reports of up to 3500. When I started trying to put names and causes of death together with the death toll, the first thing I discovered was that anyone who died during the storm, for any reason at all, was counted as a Katrina victim.
      There were people who fell off ladders, had heart attacks, alcohol poisoning, car crashes, murders, and even a suicide 6 days after the storm. But they still did not surpass a few hundred. Then I discovered John Mutter, a professor at Colombia University. Mutter claimed to have ‘interviewed’ families and public health department officials and came up with a number over 1800. A few other folks like me wanted to see the list of names so that we could verify his claim. Mutter removed his death toll web page and refused to tell anyone who those 1800 victims were, and to this day, nobody can confirm his count. But that did not stop the press from touting his sick fairy tale as fact.
      It’s now in the history books, and it is a bald faced lie.

      • Andy Mirlach says:

        The Gap between “renewables” and fossil fuels is so laughably large, it’s incredible any logical person would think it a viable solution. I was quite suprised by the fact that the west has been buying up the old Soviet arsenal and converting it into fuel. Also the actual measurements of natural background radiation was very interesting to me.

        I think the full version is available on Netflicks.

  9. rah says:

    Aw shit Gator. It seems that even an old truck driver that questions government misinformation can accrue a follower. Now, because I questioned the down grading of Camille I have a that goes by Ric Werme following me from WUWT to Not A Lot of People Know That.

    • It’s odd. I’ve met Werme in person a couple of times. We mostly chatted (me fairly drunkenly, to be honest (I’m a sucker for open buckets of ice water with numerous beers bobbing within)) about Unix.

      In any case, he’s placing his faith in someone else, who had a pissing match with Trenberth (which means something, apparently?). I’m not having such faith. I think that to overturn such a long-standing tradition you need something more rigorous than faith that “someone thinks something & that’s good enough for me”.

      In other words, Ric is a great guy, but his faith is misplaced.

  10. OrganicFool says:

    Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (Alex Epstein)
    http://industrialprogress.com/moralcase/

    “Schoolchildren for the last several generations have been taught to think of our natural
    environment as a friendly, stable place—and our main environmental contribution is to mess it up and endanger ourselves in the process. Not so. Nature does not give us a healthy environment to live in—it gives us an environment full of organisms eager to kill us and natural forces that can easily overwhelm us.

    It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick, and where we can cope with the often hostile climate of Mother Nature. Energy is what we need to build
    sturdy homes, to purify water, to produce huge amounts of fresh food, to generate heat and air-conditioning, to irrigate deserts, to dry malaria-infested swamps, to build hospitals, and to manufacture pharmaceuticals, among many other things.

    And those of us who enjoy exploring the rest of nature should never forget that oil is what enables us to explore to our heart’s content, which pre-industrial people didn’t have the time, wealth, energy,or technology to do. The energy we get from fossil fuels is particularly valuable for protecting ourselves from the climate. The climate is inherently dangerous (and it is always changing, whether we influence the change or not). Energy and technology have made us far safer from it.”

  11. Brian H says:

    Just a reminder, the term “progressive” was originally used by the Fabians back when Eugenics was fashionable to describe the advance in human evolution which produced geniuses like themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s