RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/the_real_cost_of_government_mandated_wind_and_solar.html

The government and big financial institutions promote a fraudulent analysis of the cost of solar and wind electricity. Their narrative is that wind and solar are competitive with traditional fossil fuels and that the cost of wind and solar is rapidly dropping. Academics and the media amplify and spread the fraudulent analysis.

The basis of the fraud is a simple comparison of the cost per kilowatt hour at the plant fence for electricity produced by wind or solar versus electricity produced by a traditional plant. Some or all of the massive subsidies for wind and solar are ignored in such comparisons. With such a rigged comparison, wind or solar may seem competitive.

A proper comparison reveals that wind or solar are five or even ten times more expensive than natural gas or coal electricity. To understand why this is so, we have to explain some basic facts that apply to either wind or solar.

Wind or solar is erratic, intermittent electricity. It comes and goes according to the supply of wind and sunlight. Wind is erratic from day to day and usually has a seasonal cycle. Sunlight depends on clouds, seasons and of course does not work at night. The consequence is that wind or solar electricity supply must be 100% backed up by conventional electricity plants. If 100% backup is neglected, rolling blackouts are the result when there is a lull in wind or solar production. The lull can be of short duration or seasonal.

Residential rooftop solar is backed up by the connection to the electric utility. The utility has to spend money on generating plants and a distribution network to maintain backup for the residential rooftop system. When rooftop solar is present, the utility is usually undercompensated for providing the backup service. When cloudiness happens over a wide area the backup plants go into high gear. Cloudiness happens even in sunny southern California.

The cost of backup plants for rooftop solar is borne by all the customers of the utility, not just the rooftop solar users that brag about how cheap their electricity is.

Wind or solar have both economies of scale and penalties of scale. The economy of scale results from the massive expansion of the industry. The equipment is cheaper and more efficient. The penalties of scale are more subtle.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/10/19/u-n-climate-summit-a-meaningless-meeting-of-useless-people/

Later this month, private- and public-sector “leaders” will meet in Glasgow, Scotland. Nearly all will fly to the conference, many in private jets. And what will they talk about? Saving the climate from greenhouse gas emissions, of course.

The United Nations Conference of Parties on ​​climate change, the 26th version of this long-running clown show, starts Oct. 31 and will run through Nov. 12. Media coverage will be both intense and obsequious; attendees, especially the ever-smug John Kerry, “special” climate envoy to the president, will speak in somber tones due to the seriousness at hand; warnings of impending doom will be issued; and absolutely nothing will be accomplished.

This is because there’s nothing to accomplish.

Despite the incessant screeching demands that we must save our planet by severely cutting our greenhouse gas emissions, it’s obvious that man’s impact on the climate is not creating an existential crisis. Every harsh weather event is blamed by activists, politicians, reporters, editors, and celebrities as evidence that anthropogenic global warming is going to destroy Earth.

Of course these are often the same people who tell us we cannot take a single weather event, such as a cold snap or an unusually heavy snow, and extrapolate from that there is no man-made warming. They want man’s greenhouse gas emissions to be an existential crisis.

But they can’t have it no matter how much they want it.

“An existential threat is one that threatens the very existence of mankind. Something that is simply a challenge or an inconvenience is not an existential threat,” explains University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor Cliff Mass. “An existential threat must have the potential to undermine the very viability of human civilization.”

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2021/10/sadly-theres-no-turning-back-the-green-tide/

“Our whole civilisation is on course to being drowned by sinister forces, by Marxist greenies, by governments, by corporates and by the media, while being cheered on by useful idiots in posh inner-city suburbs. Hold on to your hats, and diesel generator if you have one.”

King Canute (1016-1035) might get my vote as the greatest ever English monarch. He’s got tough competition, I admit; and from the ladies, including the current one, as well as the odd man. But he takes the cake for me with his seaside demonstration.

Realism and modesty befit a leader and stand him or her, and the populace in tow, in good stead. Churchill was a bit like that when it mattered. “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat,” he said in first speech to parliament as prime minister in May 1940. Contrast that with Hitler thinking he could fight a war on two fronts or Hirohito thinking he could take on the American war machine. Look at the misery they brought down on their own people.

More recently, George W Bush thought he could democratise Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at the way that turned out. Obama, the ultimate delusional narcissist, thought he could stop the oceans rising (Canute’s demonstration is especially apt). Trump, in his naivety, thought he could drain the swamp. He needed a much bigger pump.

This brings me to the current crop of Western world leaders, and I’ll throw in the Pope and the Prince (Charles) for good measure, all of whom could do with taking a lead from good King Canute, including our Scott Morrison, who I will single out a little. Though to be fair, in singling him out, I know that he blows with the wind and is simply a reluctant bedfellow of his more fanatical international peers.

Net Zero is the chimeric goal. That this is completely unachievable is by the way. Add an extra nought or two to whatever damage you think might be wrought in its forlorn quest. Also, add into the background Xi Jinping chortling away.

Of course, the Murdoch press and the BCA are now true believers giving additional cover for Morrison’s desperate flight from solid coal to nebulous hydrogen. There was much celebration among lefties at this news. Sinners seeing the light, as it were.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/here-hidden-150-trillion-agenda-behind-crusade-against-climate-change?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=147

We now live in a world, where bizarro headlines such as the ones below, have become a daily if not hourly occurrence:

*TREASURY TO STUDY IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON HOUSEHOLDS, COMMUNITIES
*TREASURY LAUNCHES EFFORT ON CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISKS
*BRAINARD: CLIMATE-SCENARIO ANALYSIS WILL HELP IDENTIFY RISKS
*BRAINARD: CLIMATE CHANGE COULD HAVE PROFOUND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
*MESTER: FED LOOKS AT CLIMATE CHANGE FROM VIEW OF RISKS TO BANKS
*FED IS TAKING THE RIGHT COURSE ON MONITORING CLIMATE CHANGE
*FED SHOULD CONSIDER CLIMATE-CHANGE RISK TO FINANCIAL SYSTEM

Now, in case someone is still confused, none of these institutions, and not a single of the erudite officials running them, give a rat’s ass about the climate, about climate change risks, or about the fate of future generations of Americans (and certainly not about the rising water level sweeping away their massive waterfront mansions): if they did, total US debt and underfunded liabilities wouldn’t be just shy of $160 trillion.

So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, “net zero”, green energy and ESG?

The reason – as one would correctly suspect – is money. Some $150 trillion of it.

Nye Bevan, the British socialist, famously denounced the nuclear unilateralists in his party for sending a future foreign secretary ‘naked into the conference chamber’. Unless Congress passes the stalled budget reconciliation bill, President Biden will fly to the COP26 Glasgow climate conference, which starts in less than three weeks’ time, in a similar state of undress.

Before the Paris agreement in 2015, UN climate change conferences were about hammering out the texts of binding climate treaties and agreeing to emissions reduction targets. All that has changed. Climate change targets are now decided in advance by individual countries in their Nationally Determined Contributions, draining climate conferences of drama and turning them into a giant show-and-tell. Unless, that is, the world’s self-styled climate leader turns up in Glasgow with nothing to show.

The Biden administration’s NDC is long on rhetoric, starting with climate change as an existential threat. Yet when it comes to the ‘bold action’ the threat demands, the cupboard is bare of bankable action. Interviewed in April, Gina McCarthy, Biden’s national climate adviser, who put together the NDC, was asked what was the one piece of legislation she wanted Congress to pass. ‘To make sure that by 2035 we have a clean energy sector,’ McCarthy answered.

Much of what McCarthy wants is embedded in the gargantuan reconciliation Build Back Better package, including $300 billion of clean tax credits and a Clean Energy Standard to meet Biden’s goal of having a zero-greenhouse gas emitting grid by 2035, items that McCarthy describes as ‘non-negotiables’. There is a reason for this. The White House touts the falling cost of renewables, but its convoluted formulation that clean alternatives ‘may start looking like the cheap alternatives’ suggests cost competitiveness is still years away. Until recently, the rapid transition the White House wants ‘looked anything but cheap’, so it seeks to place the cost of decarbonizing electricity on taxpayers rather than in higher electricity bills. Doing this will require congressional approval.

McCarthy claims the administration has ‘lots of regulatory authority’ should the administration fail to get the reconciliation package through Congress. But she knows as well anyone that regulation is a distant second to legislation. Build Back Better’s Clean Energy Standard is a successor to the Clean Power Plan, which McCarthy oversaw when she was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the second Obama term. Challenged in the courts, the Supreme Court imposed a stay on the EPA implementing the plan. Would the Supreme Court’s decision slow down the transition to a low carbon future? ‘Absolutely not,’ McCarthy responded two weeks later. If so, what was the point of the plan?

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-10-13-useless-green-energy-hitting-the-wall

In the field of litigation settlements, people sometimes talk about a “win, win” scenario — a settlement structure where both sides can get some advantage and simultaneously claim victory. By that criterion, what is “green” energy (aka intermittent wind and solar power)? The public pays hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to get the things built, and in return it gets: sudden shortages and soaring prices for coal, oil, gas and electricity; and dramatically reduced reliability of the electrical grid, leading to periodic blackouts and risks of many more of same; and despite it all fossil fuel use doesn’t go down. It’s a “lose, lose, lose.”

As the world comes out of the pandemic and the international economy returns to attempting to fulfill normal consumer demand, you can see green energy hitting the wall pretty much everywhere you look. It’s just a question of which data points you want to collect for a day’s entertainment.

The current energy crisis in Europe and Asia is of course getting next to no coverage in the U.S. media. But over at Bloomberg News they have a big story on October 4. That’s Bloomberg News as in Mike Bloomberg — the man with four private jets and at least ten houses who devotes his public life to hectoring you to cut your “carbon footprint.” But now suddenly the Bloomberg News people seem to have figured out that periodic energy crises are an inevitable consequence of increasing reliance on the undependable wind and sun. The headline of the article is “Global Energy Crisis Is the First of Many in the Green Power Era.” The Bloomberg piece itself is behind paywall, but extensive excerpts can be found at Climate Depot here, where they call it a “moment of clarity”:

The next several decades could see more periods of energy-driven inflation, fuel shortages and lost economic growth as electricity supplies are left vulnerable to shocks.. . . . The world is living through the first major energy crisis of the clean-power transition. It won’t be the last. . . . Wind and solar power production have soared in the last decade. But both renewable sources are notoriously fickle — available at some times and not at others. And electricity, unlike gas or coal, is difficult to store in meaningful quantities. That’s a problem, because on the electrical grid, supply and demand must be constantly, perfectly balanced. Throw that balance out of whack, and blackouts result.

No kidding.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/thanks_to_bidens_policies_prepare_for_a_cold_expensive_winter.html

One of the wonders of the modern age is that fossil fuel allows us to avoid freezing in the winter or overheating in the summer. Climate change fanatics, however, who ignore that the Earth’s climate has cycled endlessly between hot and cold for billions of years, desperately want to return us to a pre-modern state. Their efforts are paying off, for the U.S. government is warning of a 54% increase in winter heating bills.

Upon entering the Oval Office, Biden immediately shut down the Keystone Pipeline and ended news drilling on federal lands. While Trump had brought America to energy independence and affordable energy, Biden reduced America to a vassal of oil-producing countries.

Thanks to this policy, gasoline prices keep climbing. In my neighborhood, they’ve increased by almost 78% in just nine months. The same is true everywhere.

Like all Biden policies, this is devastating for the middle and working classes for it doesn’t just make commuting more expensive, it increases the price of every single item in America. Fuel is needed for farming, manufacturing, shipping, wholesaling, and retailing. Every aspect of life becomes more expensive when fuel prices rise, with the middle and working classes bearing the ultimate burden.

All of this is in the name of fighting alleged climate change. That, of course, is a faith, not a science. We humans can pollute, and I believe we have a moral obligation to keep our environment clean and healthy, but the whole climate change theory is a joke and a bad one at that.

But around the world, not just in America, energy production has been collapsing thanks to various governments’ misguided anti-fossil-fuel policy. Smart governments would have invested in making fossil fuel cleaner. Stupid governments, which means all of them, decided to focus on renewables that will never be able to replace fossil fuels. (Only nuclear power will but lefties make sure nobody has that either.)

With winter coming, the price we’re paying for this mass stupidity is going to be high. Very high:

With prices surging worldwide for heating oil, natural gas and other fuels, the U.S. government said Wednesday it expects households to see their heating bills jump as much as 54% compared to last winter.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-from-war-on-hydrocarbons-exceeds-harm-from-climate-change/

We are being told of the world’s forthcoming demise with continued use of fossil fuels, and the need to commit to a reduction in emissions to keeping temperature rise below 1.5C, but we have nothing to compare potential fatalities with or without fossil fuels.

History tells us that four of the last five warming cycles occurred before humans and their kin were even around, suggesting the causes have got to be attributable to the Sun and Mother Nature.

Human beings were not present during any of those previous ice ages and warming cycles, but the SUN was here for ALL those worldly climate changes. Are we betting against the Sun? Today, President Biden has called climate change “the number one issue facing humanity”, implying that humanity is more powerful than Mother Nature and the Sun that caused the previous ice ages and warming cycles.

So, what if the earth is warming again? Two questions for the infamous “modelers”:

How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion in a warmer climate with continued use of fossil fuels?

How many fatalities are projected of the 8 billion without the fossil fuels that were the reason the world populated from 1 to 8 billion in a period of about 200 years?

If we were to follow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) led efforts to cease oil production, cease fracking, and stop importing crude oil, the supply chain to refineries will be terminated and that manufacturing industry will become history, i.e., no more fuels for transportation infrastructures, and no manufactured derivatives from crude oil to make the thousands of products demanded by worldwide economies and lifestyles.

Interestingly, after the discovery of oil just more than a hundred years ago, we created various modes of transportation, a medical industry, and electronics and communications systems. The oil that reduced infant mortality, extended longevity to more than 80+ and allowed the world to populate to from 1 to 8 billion in about 200 short years, is now required to provide the food, medical, and communications to maintain and grow that population.