All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Carnivore]

Ole Pete comments about our negativism over global what ever. Who would not be skeptical when you see the list of contradictions in data and facts. Obama and the greenies are dead set against coal use in the US as a source of energy! Here the Energy companies responded and thru technology have reduced emissions to very low output from burning coal. Well the greenies then started harping on coal ash as a threat to the environment.

OK, well in an earlier post I posted some facts about how certain coal ash strengthens concrete significantly. We need lots of infrastructure improvements. Can you imagine using coal ash in our concrete roads and bridges and dams, etc. The benefit is easy to imagine.

So what is up with this? http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/who-really-import-us-coal-and-other-facts-about-coal-exports

Question; Do you really think the importing countries are going to clean up their coal plants to the level we have done to ours? I doubt it.

Also, Since climate change is considered a GLOBAL EVENT. How does not burning coal in the US improve the Global Climate if all we do is ship it out of the US and BURN it somewhere else on the GLOBE?

If Pete, cant see the skepticism then all I can say is get your head out of the sand.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

It is clear that the news media is biased and presents a political agenda of the left. The education system has been dumbed down and serves as indoctrination centers for political correctness. The economy is performing at the level of policy restraints yet the very same idiots are complaining about income inequality. As the president said before he won his first term as president:

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

 

[Randolph Kinney]

President Obama Keeps His Promise: Electricity Rates Will Skyrocket Because of Carbon Rules

Unfortunately for every American who uses electricity, President Obama is keeping this promise.

After failing to get legislation passed through a Congress controlled entirely by his own party, President Obama turned to EPA to impose carbon regulations. Based on some creative reading of the Clean Air Act, it came up with the Clean Power Plan.

The final version calls for a 32% cut in carbon emissions from power plants by 2030. This is more drastic than the 30% cuts found in the draft released in 2014.

Under the plan, EPA will set carbon emissions goals for each state. By 2018 states must submit plans on how each will cut carbon emissions to EPA and meet their first targets by 2022. Should states refuse to submit plans—Indiana’s Mike Pence and Oklahoma’s Mary Fallin have announced their state won’t--or miss the deadline, EPA will impose a plan on them.

What should we expect from EPA’s power grab? To get a sense, look at California, the Northeast, and Germany.

California
To reduce carbon emissions, California state policy mandates that by 2020, one-third of its electricity must come from renewables. The result has been higher electricity costs, Jonathan Lesser of Continental Economics explains:

Despite projections of imminent cost-competitiveness with fossil fuels, renewable generation continues to be considerably more expensive. During 2003-2013, overall average cost of renewable generation acquired by the aforementioned utilities rose by 55 percent, from $54/MWh to $84/MWh. In contrast, in 2013, the average wholesale market price of generation was slightly more than $46/MWh.

And it’s making it harder for many California residents to pay their energy bills:

In 2012, nearly 1 million households spent more than 10 percent of their income on energy bills. In hotter, less affluent inland counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15 percent of households.

Germany
Let’s cross the Atlantic to Europe. Germany has been undergoing the Energiewende, a nationwide policy of embracing solar and wind, while shunning coal power, and abandoning nuclear power.

This has been a costly transition. As the chart below shows, Germany’s electricity rates, already double that of the U.S. in 2008, have continued to rise.

Higher energy costs are one reason why German companies are looking to build production in the U.S. The New York Times reported in 2014 on German chemical giant BASF choosing to invest in the U.S. because of higher local energy prices:

Already, BASF has doubled its annual investment in the United States to about $1 billion a year. With its French partner Total, it recently completed an estimated $400 million expansion and upgrade of their petrochemical plant in Port Arthur, Tex., which employs about 250 people.

“We shift investment money from Europe into the U.S. as a consequence of the less competitive environment in Europe,” Harald Schwager, a senior member of BASF’s executive board, said in an interview here.

As for President Obama, should the plan withstand an expected lengthy legal fight, he’ll be out of office by the time higher electricity prices impose a heavy weight on the economy.

https://www.uschamber.com/above-the...ectricity-rates-will-skyrocket-because-carbon

People condemn those greedy corporations for cutting their cost by moving operations offshore. They wonder why incomes have stagnated for the 99% of workers. They wonder why prices of everything continues to increase. But they love their ObamaCare until they finally realize that is also impacting their incomes too. People got what they voted for - a free lunch that is very expensive.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

A Texas Utility Offers a Nighttime Special: Free Electricity

DALLAS — In Texas, wind farms are generating so much energy that some utilities are giving power away.

It is possible because Texas has more wind power than any other state, accounting for roughly 10 percent of the state’s generation. Alone among the 48 contiguous states, Texas runs its own electricity grid that barely connects to the rest of the country, so the abundance of nightly wind power generated here must be consumed here.

Wind blows most strongly at night and the power it produces is inexpensive because of its abundance and federal tax breaks. A shift of power use away from the peak daytime periods means lower wholesale prices, and the possibility of avoiding the costly option of building more power plants.

For utilities, the giveaway is hardly altruistic. Deregulation in Texas has spurred intense competition for customers. By encouraging energy use at night, utilities reduce some of the burdens, and costs, that the oversupply of wind energy places on the power grid.

Texas is a unique power market, one that makes it better suited for innovation than most others. It is by far the largest deregulated electricity market in the country, spawning scores of retail power competitors hungry to make new customers and keep old ones.

“Time of use” plans are growing in popularity in Texas, according to figures compiled by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot, the operator of the power grid and the manager of the deregulated market for 75 percent of the state.

Consumers estimated that the plans were saving them as much as $40 or $50 a month during the peak summer season.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/b...0151109&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50329110&_r=0

Get your free electricity - move to Texas. Hello California?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress....arming-and-the-illusion-of-control-part-1.pdf


What is Global Warming?

The term “global warming” has come to mean the warming of our planet Earth (the surface, the lower atmosphere, and the oceans to depth) that has been caused by, and will be further enhanced by, the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. No one bothers calling it man-made global warming or anthropogenic global warming or human-inducedglobal warming anymore. Whenever a news report or article uses the term global warming, everyone now assumes they’re talking about the hypothetical man-made kind of warming.

There are many possible reasons why global warming has occurred over the past few decades, some of which are natural, but the primary focus of research has been on the consequences of increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that result from the burning of fossil fuels.

Graphs that show global land plus ocean surfaces warming since pre-industrial times are commonplace. Figure 1.2-1 shows the annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies, based on the UKMO HadCRUT4 reconstruction, from its start year in 1850 through to 2014. Based on the linear trend, global surfaces are warming at a not-very-alarming long-term rate of about 0.06 deg C/decade (about 0.10 deg F/ decade)…for a total warming of less than 0.8 deg C (about 1.4 deg F) since 1880.



The linear trend line also helps to illustrate that the warming was not continuous. Initially, there is a period of cooling followed by a period of warming until the mid-1940s. Then the cycle repeats itself with a period of cooling until the mid-1970s, followed by a warming period. Because the rates of warming during the two warming periods are greater than the cooling rates during the two cooling periods, there is a positive warming trend.

That leaves us with a very basic question. Should we expect another multidecadal cooling period, or at least a slowdown lasting for a couple of decades, before another warming period? Rephrased, would we expect the multidecadal (approximately 60-year) cycle to repeat itself?

Many persons believe the cycle will repeat into the future. The climate modelers do not. Their models have been tuned to extend (and amplify) the warming from the more recent higher-than-average warming period out into the future, without accounting for the cyclical nature of global warming. If the cycle continues into the future, then the climate models have simulated too much warming…way too much warming.

THE RATE OF WARMING IS SO SMALL WE HAVE TO BE TOLD GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING. WE CAN’T SENSE IT.

In the Introduction, I noted we have to be told global warming is occurring…that we as individuals would not be able to sense that global surface temperatures have warmed. Daily and seasonal variations in local temperatures are so great that we’d never notice the slight change in global surface temperatures we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s. It’s only about 0.7 deg C or 1.3 deg F (based on the linear trend), and it’s occurred over a 40-year period.

Think about how great the temperature variations are at your home: over the course of every year…and daily. Here are examples from a widely referenced dataset.

In the two graphs in Figure 1.2-2, the increase in annual global surface temperature (red curves) since 1880 (same red curve as in Figure 1.2-1) is compared to daily maximums (orange curves) and minimums (dark green curves) for the Central England Temperature dataset, during that same timeframe. The top graph shows the three datasets in deg C, while the bottom graph shows them in deg F.



The UKMO Central England Temperature (a.k.a. HadCET or simply CET) dataset is the longest continuous temperature record in the world. It is supported by the 1992 Parker et al. paper A new daily Central England Temperature series. As its name suggests, it is not based on a temperature record at one specific location but rather a group of locations in Central England.

Daily Central England maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperature data are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer, specifically the Daily climate indices webpage, starting in 1878.

The minimums of the green curves in Figure 1.2-2 above show the lowest temperatures reached each year, and the maximums are the highest annual temperatures. Obviously, the range in temperatures that Central England sees every year dwarfs the rise in global surface temperatures.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is obvious to me that Tisdale is right. Cycles repeat themselves and the variation of individual reading of temperature far exceeds the average temperature readings over the time period. Statistically, one can be 99.999% certain that there is no change occurring.

 

[Carnivore]

I used to live in the Panhandle of Texas(about four years). I married into a farming/Ranching family. They live north of Amarillo about 60 miles. I speak with my ex-father in law several times a year. He has a number of Wind Generators on his place. I can tell you from personal experience that the wind is way more present more than when its not. Its not a mild breeze either and it blows night and day. Its a rare day when its not blowing at all.

So a family could go off the grid there real easy. Especially if you have a few gas wells. His place had several gas wells. He used them to fuel his irrigation pump engines.

If it gets bad enough I think I will move back to the panhandle and live on his land. I can hunt and fish. I could grow a productive garden. Raise a steer or two. I could indeed live by my own hand.

I would only need defensive weapons when the city folk came around. Its so flat there I could take care of intruders before they got within a thousand yards. lol

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I used to live in the Panhandle of Texas(about four years). I married into a farming/Ranching family. They live north of Amarillo about 60 miles. I speak with my ex-father in law several times a year. He has a number of Wind Generators on his place. I can tell you from personal experience that the wind is way more present more than when its not. Its not a mild breeze either and it blows night and day. Its a rare day when its not blowing at all.

So a family could go off the grid there real easy. Especially if you have a few gas wells. His place had several gas wells. He used them to fuel his irrigation pump engines.

If it gets bad enough I think I will move back to the panhandle and live on his land. I can hunt and fish. I could grow a productive garden. Raise a steer or two. I could indeed live by my own hand.

I would only need defensive weapons when the city folk came around. Its so flat there I could take care of intruders before they got within a thousand yards. lol

With urban areas subject to much higher costs (taxes included) and with urban jobs not paying enough to cover those costs (after tax), people who can and want to move out to rural areas or to states that have more affordable living will do just that.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I saw a lot of small wind generators in the High Plains in the 1970s. The common winds of the region generated a lot of energy. Combined with water mills and storage tanks sitting 20 or so feet above the ground (10psi pressure in the house), many people basically did live "off the grid" and the old Delco wind generator systems were 36 volt. Prior to rural electrification - which was still on going up to the 1960s, it was the only available "grid". My ex-father in law was raised upon just such a place and we went to visit the "old homestead" (the house was gone) once and he pointed out the remains of the generator mast and the frame the generator sat on in a small concrete block well house. The batteries were wet cell batteries and as a child he had to check those and keep them full of water.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I wonder ... with all the taxation and regulation aimed at carbon ... can people that live in rural areas continue to burn wood or coal? Just like the Bureau of firearms, tobacco and alcohol was setup to control and collect taxes, maybe we will have a new government cabinet post: The Bureau of Carbon and Green energy. It works directly for the U.S. Treasury. Just like revenuers comb the hills of Tennessee for illegal alcohol, revenuers will comb the plains for illegal carbon burning and not paying the green tax.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Climate change could create 100 million poor, over half a billion homeless

Rising sea levels from unchecked carbon emissions could drive more than 100 million people into extreme poverty and submerge the homes of over half a billion, two new reports say.

The reports have been released ahead of the United Nation's 21st annual global conference on climate change -- known as COP21 -- being held in Le Bourget, France from 30 November to 11 December, 2015.

Climate change is an acute and pressing threat to the poor and any climate stabilization policies must be integrated with efforts to eliminate poverty,according to a new report from the World Bank.

The study found that rising global temperatures stand to push more than 100 million people into extreme poverty in the next 15 years, with sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia most at risk.

Climate-related "shocks" are already impeding efforts to reduce poverty, according to the report, particularly through crop losses, food price shocks and other impacts on agriculture, which is the main source of income for most poor families.

Another report released by Climate Central on the same day found that rising sea levels caused by a 4°C increase in warming from carbon emissions could submerge land that is currently home to up to 760 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/world/climate-change-create-poor-homeless/

15 years and the world is doomed from global warming, with rising seas, crop failures, disease, wars, social violence, ... dumbing down the population .... etc.