Scientists admit climate models are junk

[madinsomniac]

Tibs, quoting Greenpeace when talking energy is like quoting me when it comes to how the Ravens are going to do this year

 

[Spike]

Germany's Green Energy Failure

Residential German electricity prices are nearly three times higher than electricity prices in the U.S.

As many as 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because of an inability to pay for rising energy costs.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/German-Green-Energy-Study.pdf

 

[Tibs]

Tibs, quoting Greenpeace when talking energy is like quoting me when it comes to how the Ravens are going to do this year

Yeah right, and the "The American Energy Alliance" is a credible source. Got it.

 

[madinsomniac]

Also there is an interesting development out in Ohio this year... The ultra environmentally-psycho Sierra club just joined forces with the biggest coal power company in the state to get Ohio to reverse a compensation plan for providing grid stability power that would have made coal plants unprofitable and virtually closed them all in the state because they were terrified about the impending blackouts and what that would do to their agenda right now, because the renewables and gas, while theoretically enough to sustain the demand, would never be reliable enough to keep the grid up.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Yeah right, and the "The American Energy Alliance" is a credible source. Got it.

There are a thousand sources out there. Germany's green energy initiatives have come at skyrocketing costs. There are two sides to the coin and their citizens are suffering. You can wear blinders if you like.

Will you accept Forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...utionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#51c4057c14a6

Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders

However serious problems are caused when government starts using taxpayer resources to subsidize or incentivize these expansions. Things get even worse when centralized planners start manipulating market choices or trying to manage the marketplace itself by controlling the generation of power.

This is precisely what is happening in Germany – where command economists have failed spectacularly in their bid to force a national transition to renewable energy.

In 2000 Germany passed a major green initiative which forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for a period of twenty years. Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government – this initiative has since been embraced by Germany’s Conservative-Liberal majority, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel. In fact Merkel has doubled down on Germany’s renewable energy push in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan – ramping up government’s plan to phase in renewables while taking the country’s nuclear power industry offline.

Merkel’s government shut down eight reactors in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster (which was caused by a tsunami – a threat Germany isn’t exposed to) and has vowed to shut down all remaining nuclear facilities by 2022. The problem? Despite heavy government subsidization, renewable energies simply aren’t filling the void.

“After deciding to exit nuclear energy, it seems as if Ms. Merkel’s coalition stopped its work,” a former German environmental minister told The New York Times last year. “There is great danger that this project will fail, with devastating economic and social consequences.”

A year later the project is failing – resulting in what one German industry expert termed a “chaotic standstill.”

Merkel’s energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of sea-based wind turbine power by 2030. However through the first six months of 2012 only 45 megawatts had been added to Germany’s existing 200-megawatt supply, according to an industry analyst quoted by Reuters. And despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which currently comprises 14 percent of German power bills), major wind projects in the North Sea are being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.

The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source. Not only that, they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of thousands of birds annually.

“Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it depends on the weather and includes periods without any recognizable capacity for days, or suddenly occurring supply peaks that push the grid to its limits,” a 2012 report from Germany energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil notes. “There is a threat of power outages over large areas, mainly in wintertime when the demand is high and less (power) gets delivered from abroad.”

A typical 20-turbine wind farm occupies an area of 250 acres. So in order for Merkel to achieve her objective, she would have to cover an area six times the size of New York City with turbines. Not surprisingly the erection of all those turbines – along with the infrastructure needed to route their inconsistent power supply back to the German heartland – would be astronomical.

“The costs of our energy reform and restructuring of energy provision could amount to around one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s,” Germany’s environmental minister announced last month.

That sum could rise even higher, as last month a Harvard University study revealed the extent to which the power generating potential of wind farms has been “overestimated.”

“The generating capacity of very large wind power installations may peak at between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter,” the study concluded. “Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines’ slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.”

Such are the shifting sands upon which Merkel has staked her country’s energy future.

Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the past two decades – bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide than hard coal.

In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.

This is the cautionary tale of command energy economics – one other nations would be wise to heed.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/greenfascismpromo/pdf/54-56_Greenfascism.pdf

In total, Germany has massively subsidized a monstrous expansion of inefficient green energy supplies, providing irregular and sporadic power, creating a physical economic drain on the German economy, driving out productive industry and manufacturing, without producing the slightest reduction in their CO2 emissions – and at the price of a “second mortgage” to Germans in the form of their electricity bill. Let the lesson be learned – there is no need for other nations to repeat this failure.

Should I continue?

 

[Steeltime]

Yeah right, and the "The American Energy Alliance" is a credible source. Got it.

So refute the data.

Since it is made up and all.

Go ahead ... refute the fact that Germans pay 3x as much for their electricity as we do, and that 800,000 Germans had power cut of because they could not pay that price.

Go ahead ... I'll wait. While I'm waiting, I guess I can look at this pretty graph:

 

[Confluence]

Thanks Tim. I thought this was the best part of the Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin.../#51c4057c14a6

Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the past two decades – bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide than hard coal.

In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.

The cost/benefit has never made sense with most of the so-called renewables; yet so few are aware.

It kinda makes you wonder who might be benefiting from this massive mis-allocation of global wealth -- from the people to --- whom???

 

[Tibs]

Tim, there are clearly a significant number of issues that need to be resolved. It's not easy sledding, for even a partial transition towards sustainable energy sources. But I don't see how you could argue a move away from fossil fuels wouldn't benefit us all, be it using wind or solar or something else. I hope the technology will continue to advance and make it more financially feasible.

In the meantime, continue to demonize climate change and a possible shift towards sustainable energy at your own peril.

 

[Confluence]

Tim, there are clearly a significant number of issues that need to be resolved. It's not easy sledding, for even a partial transition towards sustainable energy sources. But I don't see how you could argue a move away from fossil fuels wouldn't benefit us all, be it using wind or solar or something else. I hope the technology will continue to advance and make it more financially feasible.

In the meantime, continue to demonize climate change and a possible shift towards sustainable energy at your own peril.

From here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

The organizing principle for sustainability is sustainable development, which includes the four interconnected domains: ecology, economics, politics and culture

The cost to make most "renewable" energy is greater than the benefit, so the loss is borne by those paying for the net difference. Even when spread over time by confusing contracts, it is clear that the only way to make these projects happen is for governmental assistance, which is effectively a monetary transfer from taxpayers to those behind the sub-economic scheme.

How does this make any sense?

Literally, these funds could be used for healthcare, for feeding those in need, for research into many things (including better, economically feasible power generation), etc. but the funds are going to pay for inefficient energy sources: ironically, ones that use up great resources for their construction (wind, solar).

So the wealth transfer goes from the people to the manufacturers of wind/solar equipment, and to subsidize those that make this possible thru -- government subsidies!

Less Pollution: YES
More Efficiency: YES
Wasting Resources (including the people's money): NO

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Tim, there are clearly a significant number of issues that need to be resolved.

That is the understatement of the year. 800,000 Germans can't pay their electric bill. Where's the Liberal humanitarian (cough cough) in you at this moment? 800,000 people Tibs. Going broke to get Green.

It's not easy sledding, for even a partial transition towards sustainable energy sources. But I don't see how you could argue a move away from fossil fuels wouldn't benefit us all, be it using wind or solar or something else.

No where have I ever argued against it. I'm all for - and that's no lie- renewable energy. I'd love nothing more than to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. I'd like not to pollute the air using fossil fuels. I'd really like it if we could make solar absolutely real.

But no Government to date can seem to generate Green without demonizing what's in place. They can't seem to orchestrate a real transition, like a business would. No, they do stupid **** like President ******* Obama, trying to put coal out of business (and all of the workers that go with it) BEFORE we have even a modest Green infrastructure in place. The perils there are immense. We risk ending up like Germany, bankrupting individuals, raising electricity costs, all because our Government is obtuse and couldn't run a popsicle stand without going broke. We must maintain what we have before we embark fully into the new venture.

If you were having a house built, and it wouldn't be ready for 12 months, would you sell your house today and put your family on the street for a year? This is what these governments are doing. Is it good on paper? Yes, but the least intelligent among us are orchestrating the transitions.

I hope the technology will continue to advance and make it more financially feasible.

In the meantime, continue to demonize climate change and a possible shift towards sustainable energy at your own peril.

This I will do. The "science" is nothing but. It's a religion. The facts show the claims fail.

It is possible to believe climate change is a religion, junk science, and a means to redistribute wealth while still hoping for the eventual development of renewable energy without putting millions on the street homeless. That's where I am.

You continue to push for your "religion" while bankrupting individuals along the way. That's humanitarian.

 

[MTC]

Tim, there are clearly a significant number of issues that need to be resolved. It's not easy sledding, for even a partial transition towards sustainable energy sources. But I don't see how you could argue a move away from fossil fuels wouldn't benefit us all, be it using wind or solar or something else. I hope the technology will continue to advance and make it more financially feasible.

In the meantime, continue to demonize climate change and a possible shift towards sustainable energy at your own peril.

Nothing wrong with alternative sources of energy. If you can use it and produce it to the masses at a fraction of the cost then yeah go for it. I think a lot of people are mad cause tax payers money goes to wasted programs like these. Carbon emissions, etc are not destroying the earth. Fracking for said resources is what makes mother nature act on impusle cause your forcing out resources that are not supposed to be produced for whatever number of years the earth decided when its ready--result nature compensates with weather, etc. Thats my opinion but I stand by it

 

[madinsomniac]

Tibs, you have to understand... a power grid is a complex thing... too much or too little power and the whole thing can fail. a wind farm may produce 100 megawatts and may produce nothing... solar panels are as flakey as well.. you cannot have fluctuating power... you need stable supplies... Hydro is already more or less maxed in the country. Nuclear is incredibly clean but people fear it because of meltdowns... of course that's only because we still use rod technology from the 70's and wont permit the smaller easy to contain and cool balls or pellets that could be in use now.... which both cuts us off from that source and also exposes us to the older riskier plants too.
Natural gas has a lot less pollutants... virtually no So2, lower Nox, and even the estimated CO2 Fc factor is 1040 to bituminous' 1800 or lignite's 1910(scf mmBtu) But short and long term impact from Fracking is way worse than is let on.
Coal has a lot of downsides, and yes it needs to be minimized, but for something that is reliable and consistent that needs no fuel lines built to it, it still is the way to go for stability... You can build one anywhere near water and a coal pile can be stockpiled and ready to go in an emergency.

its incredibly telling that while democrats ***** and moan about fossil fuels... they have no problem shipping ours out overseas, often with little tax return for public benefit... I'm pretty sure we all share an atmosphere, so if our companies cant make use of cheap and efficient electricity, why basically gift it to other countries? I mean if its bad no one should burn it right?

 

[ark steel]

I can't wait for elfie to come in a put you little ******* back in your place.

Let the intellectual smack down begin!

 

[Steeltime]

Tim, there are clearly a significant number of issues that need to be resolved. It's not easy sledding, for even a partial transition towards sustainable energy sources. But I don't see how you could argue a move away from fossil fuels wouldn't benefit us all, be it using wind or solar or something else.

Tibs, there is little we could do to STOP the increasing use of and reliance on renewable energies.

Do you know why developed nations became more dependent on oil and coal for transportation and energy production in the 20th century? Because it was cheaper and more efficient than the alternatives.

Do you know why developed nations will rely more on solar, wind, etc. in the future? Because it is cheaper and more efficient than petroleum and coal.

But that is a long way off, for the simple reason that oil and coal are so incredibly rich in stored energy and much, much cheaper than wind, solar, etc. even with massive subsidies for the "renewable" energies:

In the meantime, continue to demonize climate change and a possible shift towards sustainable energy at your own peril.

Wait, "demonize climate change"?? What ... the ... ****?!?!?

The demonization belongs 100% to the "climate change believers," Tibs. Jesus, that crew seriously suggests laws making denial of man-made climate change a punishable offense:

Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented that there were no current laws on the books to punish global-warming skeptics “I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under,” he said in a September 2014 interview with Climate Depot.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers/#XmfOsDyVGr1i96Az.99

So you - who have voiced such concern over Trump's comments about changing the laws governing speech in this country - why have you been so incredibly silent on this issue?

Back to you.

 

[DBS1970]

All I will say is northern Europe is going to have a hard time with solar on those short gloomy winter days. I speak from experience having lived through a winter in central Germany while in stationed there in the Army.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

That is the understatement of the year. 800,000 Germans can't pay their electric bill. Where's the Liberal humanitarian (cough cough) in you at this moment? 800,000 people Tibs. Going broke to get Green.

When I was in Italy my hotel room key had a plug on it that you plugged into the wall to turn the lights on so you couldn't leave them on when you left.

 

[Steeltime]

Horseshit!!

You CONservative climate deniers ignore the incredible drought in California. This image is a before-and-after gif, showing Lake Oroville's water level in 2015 (low) and today. Just look:

Wait ...

 

[SteelChip]

Who cares about the stinkin' water levels, how are them smelts doin'...that's the real issue.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Who cares about the stinkin' water levels, how are them smelts doin'...that's the real issue.

"Save the fish! Save the fish! Save the fish!"

 

[DBS1970]

Who cares about the stinkin' water levels, how are them smelts doin'...that's the real issue.

They are completely extinct in the wild. They only exist in fish farms now. So letting all that water run out into the ocean leaving reservoirs dry serves no purpose. But that's California for you.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I hear "climate change" is causing the earth to wobble now, because the Earth didn't have droughts and extreme weather before the 1900s.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Horseshit!!

You CONservative climate deniers ignore the incredible drought in California. This image is a before-and-after gif, showing Lake Oroville's water level in 2015 (low) and today. Just look:

Wait ...

The drought in 1934 was much worse, and so was the one in the 1580. How does man made global warming explain any of that?

 

[Troglodyte]

The drought in 1934 was much worse, and so was the one in the 1580. How does man made global warming explain any of that?

Um, 1580?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Um, 1580?

Um, yeah.

 

[MTC]

Horseshit!!

You CONservative climate deniers ignore the incredible drought in California. This image is a before-and-after gif, showing Lake Oroville's water level in 2015 (low) and today. Just look:

Wait ...

Again

Nature goes through cycles. There have been droughts before technology/man made "pollution"