Wind Power Is a Joke

Every now and then you should check out the Alberta Electric System Operator’s “Current Supply Demand Report” page.

This handy little page shows us the total net generation of power from different sources. It is constantly being updated.

Wind power sucks. It’s hellishly cold in Alberta right now and wind power contributes nothing to make our lives better. LITERALLY NOTHING. 

wind power sucks.JPG

You see that? Despite 1445 MW max capacity with wind power, and total net generation is zero. On one of the coldest days of the year.

Just look at all those wind farms and all the magical wind power generated!


Oh wait. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero.

You get the idea.

You can build all you want for capacity, but it doesn’t mean you get much actual electricity out of it.

Natural gas is reliable, cheap, clean, and plentiful. Wind power is unreliable, expensive, and requires back up from something you can count on (i.e. fossil fuel based energy that just works).

Wind power is a joke.

Anyone who thinks the government should tax perfectly good and reliable fossil fuel energy production & use to subsidize pathetically inefficient wind power is a fool or a knave.

Ottawa Introduces “National Energy Program: The Sequel”

Trudeau’s carbon tax.

Centrica Is Getting Out of Natural Gas Production in Canada

Another company discouraged by political uncertainty — Centrica is selling natural gas assets at a likely loss to get out of Canada.

How Much Do We Subsidize Fossil Fuels?

Some people have a confused idea of what counts as a subsidy.

In the minds of anti-oil radicals, not collecting more taxes from fossil fuel producers and consumers is a subsidy to fossil fuels.

That’s like saying the government subsidizes you unless it taxes 100% of your income.

David Yager writes:

The notion that Canadian governments in some way subsidize the cost of the final product to consumers – as per the dictionary definition – is preposterous. According to PetroCanada the taxes on a liter of gasoline in Canada in 2015 above and beyond the cost of petroleum, refining and distribution included a federal excise tax of $0.10 per liter, GST/HST ranging from 5% to 15%, a $0.667 per liter carbon tax in B.C., and provincial fuels taxes ranging from $0.13 to $0.192 per liter. Similar direct fuel cost levies exist for diesel fuel. These can total 25% or more of the total cost or more depending on crude prices and where you live. It is estimated these fuel levies provide Ottawa and the provinces with $15 billion annually. This is on top of another $18 billion oil and gas producers paid to all levels of government in 2014 in the form of property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes and producing royalties.

Some subsidy.

— Read more at EnergyNow

“Environmental activism is becoming a new form of protectionism.”

This is worth reading:

An article from summer 2014 that explores how U.S. interests fund anti-oil environmentalist radicals to selectively target Canadian oil production as a roundabout protectionist strategy.

The Tar Sands Campaign pointedly ignores the dozens of tankers bringing foreign oil into the United States and Eastern Canada on a daily basis. Evidently, the only tankers this campaign opposes are those that would break the U.S. market’s monopoly on Canadian oil exports.

But in North Dakota and Texas where oil production is booming, there is no multimillion-dollar campaign to stop or slow down the oil industry. As far as I can tell, the only country where there is a systematic, multimillion-dollar, foreign-funded campaign to choke the oil industry is Canada.

Whether intentional or not, environmental activism is becoming a new form of protectionism. By exaggerating risks and impacts, activists exert such political and social pressure that major infrastructure projects can be stalled or stopped altogether, land-locking Canadian oil and gas and keeping Canada over a barrel.

— Read more at Alberta Oil Magazine

Ontario Government’s Centrally Planned Electricity Debacle

“One of the most devastating audit reports on government bungling and malpractice in Canadian history,” says Terrence Corcoran.

The AG reports that consumers have transferred billions of dollars to companies supplying green renewables on the basis of contracts awarded at grossly inflated prices. Because of the lack of competitive pricing for new power sources, nominally to replace coal generation, Lysyk estimates the extra burden on ratepayers at $9.2 billion — to pay for contracts at double to triple the going market price.

Over the next 17 years, she says consumers are expected to shell out about $133 billion in adjustments to cover the cost of the Liberals’ massive and scandalous restructuring of the electricity supply industry. Many of the dollars will go to pay companies to not produce electricity.

Read more.

Would You Spend Trillions of Dollars to Reduce Earth’s Temperature by 0.05°C?

Someone actually bothered to look at the IPCC’s own models to evaluate the impact of all the different programs proposed as CO2 mitigation plans on Earth’s climate. The results are extremely impressive if your goal is spending gargantuan sums of money and impoverishing humanity to achieve almost nothing.

From the abstract of the paper (emphasis and formatting added):

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

  • The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.
  • The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C.
  • The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.
  • All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

To illustrate the utter impotence of these asinine proposals, let’s take the first case: the US Clean Power Plan, which would strive to reduce carbon emissions by reducing coal based energy production. If these reductions are implemented and adhered to until 2100 (when most of the people reading this will be dead), the reduction in temperature rise would be 0.013°C.

Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t seem like very much. Maybe some perspective will be helpful:

Everyone knows that as you go up a mountain, the air gets cooler. The rate at which non-condensing air cools with increasing altitude is called the “dry adiabatic lapse rate”. The rule of thumb states that for every hundred metres higher that you climb, the temperature drops by 1°C.

Now, a human being is typically around 1.7 metres tall, plus or minus. This means that other things being equal, the air at your head is about 0.017°C cooler than the air at your feet. And recall from above that the “impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100” …

Which means that after spending billions of dollars and destroying valuable power plants and reducing our energy options and making us more dependent on Middle East oil, all we will do is make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads … I am overcome with gratitude for such a stupendous accomplishment.

Okay then.

But that’s just one proposal for one country. What if the entire world successfully implements all its proposals by 2030 and maintains them until 2100? Far-fetched maybe, but let’s go with it.

Realistically, this would result in a 0.05°C temperature reduction by 2100.

Since it’s perfectly normal to experience a difference of 20°C in a single day, this is pretty much completely meaningless.

And again, this is all based on the IPCC’s own climate models, which have enough problems on their own but nonetheless are the basis for all the anti-carbon hysteria and fear-mongering.

— Read more at WUWT

%d bloggers like this: