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!

lol-wind

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.

Should We Subsidize CO2?

Alberta’s NDP government passed its carbon tax law today.

Many agree that it is one of the stupidest taxes ever created, however even many arguments against the tax accept the basic premise that CO2 is a negative externality and “something must be done.”

But what if the premise underlying the tax — not to mention any other “climate change” policy — is wrong?

What if the social cost of carbon is negative — i.e. the net effects of carbon are positive?

A new paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick, and Kreutzer finds reason to believe this is justified by the empirical data:

Substituting an empirical ECS distribution from LC15 yields a mean 2020 SCC of $19.52, a drop of 48%. The same exercise for the FUND model yields a mean SCC estimate of $19.33 based on RB07 and $3.33 based on the LC15 parameters—an 83% decline. Furthermore the probability of a negative SCC (implying CO2 emissions are a positive externality) jumps dramatically using an empirical ECS distribution. Using the FUND model, under the RB07 parameterization at a 3% discount rate there is only about a ten percent chance of a negative SCC through 2050, but using the LC15 distribution, the probability of a negative SCC jumps to about 40%. Remarkably, replacing simulated climate sensitivity values with an empirical distribution calls into question whether CO2 is even a negative externality. The lower SCC values also cluster more closely together across difference discount rates, diminishing the importance of this parameter.

This all makes perfect sense, because there are non-climate effects of CO2 and they are extremely beneficial to the planet (plant growth, crop yield, human well-being). Furthermore, the climate effects of CO2 observed in the real world are far less damaging than what’s been predicted by the models of climate change propagandists — and these too are largely beneficial. On this, see Goklany’s Carbon Dioxide: The Good Newsfrom GWPF.

So using the logic of carbon tax advocates, since carbon provides us with overall benefits, we should subsidize carbon rather than tax it extra.

CONCLUSION

From the standpoint of economics and ethics, we should neither subsidize carbon nor tax it.

If you have a carbon tax, get rid of it. If you don’t have one but think you need one, forget it.

Carbon taxes are an abomination — they do nothing to improve the environment and exist only to plunder citizens so that politicians, central planners and cronies can enrich themselves.

“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

Alberta NDP Emissions Policy Based on Secret Deal between Big Oil and Radical Environmentalists

“Agree to a hard cap on oilsands emissions and we’ll stop opposing pipelines,” the environmentalists groups said to four big oil companies.

This sounds like a silly arrangement.

How is this agreement enforceable?

How does it empower anyone to defeat all the other opposition from the myriad groups that hate pipelines and oil and get pipelines built?

Big Oil is bound to enforceable government regulation — what are the the environmental radicals bound to, other than a handshake? Oh right, nothing.

 

They Aren’t Saving the World, They’re Having an Expensive Party

This latest climate change conference in Paris is shrouded in a “cloak of crapola,” writes Les MacPherson:

The latest manifestation is the 40,000 people in Paris, most of them flown in from around the world on carbon-spewing jets, mostly at taxpayers’ expense, for yet another last-chance-to-save-the-planet climate conference.

What is this, the third last-chance to save the planet, or the fourth? I forget. These conferences should be numbered, like Superbowls, to help us keep track of our last chances.

— Read the rest of the article

Trudeau Will Give $2.65B in Climate Change Welfare to Corrupt Foreign Governments

It was bad enough when Harper was doing this, but Trudeau will double it. Terrible.

Are we to be spared nothing when it comes to the lies of climate change?

Sentence-by-Sentence Refutation of Boilerplate Climate Change Propaganda

World leaders are currently enjoying their fancy party in Paris and pontificating about how global warming is going to kill us all and we must let bureaucrats and politicians lead us into a glorious new era of the centrally planned renewable energy economy.

At this time it’s useful to review an article that shamelessly repeats the typical mantra of climate change lies and fallacies. The subject of the following piece relies on all the usual propaganda you hear spouted by would-be central planners and cronies, and is rebutted sentence-by-sentence. Overall, this presents a useful summary of common climate change lies and their refutation.

AP’s Seth Borenstein gets something right (but only the date)

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I often get emails asking me to comment in detail on an article on global warming that pretends the “problem” is worse than it is. Here is my reply to one such request.

Earth is a wilder [no], warmer [no] place since last climate deal made in 1997

By SETH BORENSTEIN, November 29, 2015 [At least he got the date right]

PARIS (AP) — This time, it’s a hotter [Satellites show no global warming for the 223 months (i.e., 18 years 7 months) since April 1997], waterier [Water vapour is difficult to measure, but some records show no change in water vapour except in the vital mid-troposphere, where it has actually declined], wilder Earth [The IPCC, both in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Weather and in its 2013 Fourth Assessment Report,says there has been no particular overall trend in storminess, floods or droughts] that world leaders are trying to save [They are not trying to save the world: Bjorn Lomborg has reliably calculated that the effect of honouring all nations’ Paris pledges will be to reduce global temperature by 0.05-0.17 C° by 2100 compared with having no pledges, and the cost of getting that reduction will be $1 trillion].

The writer is actually giving the propagandist, Mr. Borenstein, too much credit about getting the date right. That was probably automatically generated with the website software — even a monkey trying to publish an attempt at Hamlet on his blog would have gotten the date right.

But hey, he… um… spelled his own name correctly?

— Read the rest of the article. —

%d bloggers like this: