Starting at the same price, there’s a 10 to 1 gap in investment performance
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
… Don’t put your pension into Greens. “Greens” are what the City boys in red suspenders with East End accents you could cut with a machete and Porsches you could scratch with a convenient latch-key call renewable-energy stocks. See the chart:
As Bjørn Lomborg points out in a recent devastating graph, if you had been scared enough by the hockey-stick fable in the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report to invest $100 in Greens in 2002, you would now be the proud owner of $28, or quite a bit less than that after inflation.
But if you had followed Monckton’s Rule of Merry and Profitable Investment – listen very carefully to what the Government tells you, do the exact opposite, wait a decade or so, then collect in spades – you would have invested your $100 in oil and gas stocks. And you would now have a billfold crammed with $238, or 1000% more than the hapless investor in Greens.
These are remarkable figures. Oil and gas corporations have had to face ever higher taxes and ever tighter regulations in the name of Saving The Planet. Greens have been subsidized to levels so absurd they’re beyond Communist. Even with the millstone of taxation, regulation and ministerial hate-speech, oil and gas stocks have done well. Even with frequent epinephrine overdoses of taxpayer subsidy and paeans of official praise, Greens – as the red-suspenders brigade would put it – are down the toilet.
That is a remarkable contrast. Not the least reason for it is that all forms of so-called “renewable” energy are monstrously, irremediably inefficient. Currently, my favorite example is the sappy UK Government’s subsidies to new electric autos.
Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric auto is – er – also 27%. However, the electric auto requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.
CO2 emissions from domestic transport account for 24% of UK CO2 emissions, and cars, vans, and taxis represent 90% of road transport. Assuming 80% of fuel use is by these autos, they account for 19.2% of UK CO2 emissions. Conversion to electric power, 61% of which is generated by fossil fuels in the UK, would remit 39% of 19.2%, or 7.5%, of UK CO2 emissions.
However, the battery-weight penalty would be 30% of 19.2% of 61%, or 3.5%, of UK CO2 emissions. So the net saving from converting all UK cars, vans, and taxis to electricity would be just 4% of UK CO2 emissions, which are 1.72% of global CO2 emissions. Thus converting all UK autos to electricity would abate 0.07% of global CO2 emissions.
But at what cost?
The cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidizing the 30,000 electric cars, vans, and taxis bought in 2012 was a flat-rate subsidy of $8333 (£5000) for each vehicle and a further subsidy of about $350 (£210) in vehicle excise tax remitted, a total of $260.5 million. On that basis, the cost of subsidizing all 2,250,000 new autos sold each year would be $19.54 bn. Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, batteries must be completely replaced every few years at great cost, canceling the longevity advantage.
The considerable cost of using renewable energy to bring down the UK’s fossil-fueled generation fraction from the global mean 67% to 61% is not taken into account, though, strictly speaking, an appropriate share of the very large subsidy cost of renewable electricity generation should be assigned to electric vehicles.
By contrast, what is the cost of doing nothing?
The Stern Report on the economics of climate change says 3 Cº global warming this century would cost 0-3% of global GDP. We’re not going to get 3 Cº warming, or anything like it, so make that, say, 1% of GDP.
But the cost of making global warming go away by methods whose unit cost per Celsius degree of global warming abated is equivalent to that of the UK Government’s mad subsidy for electric autos works out at 74% of global GDP. So it is 74 times more expensive to act today than to adapt the day after tomorrow. Oops!
In fact, the cost-benefit ratio may be even worse than this. Now that both RSS and UAH have reported their satellite-derived monthly temperature anomalies for February 2014, the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index can be determined, based on the simple mean of the two datasets since January 2005.
The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report last year backdated the models’ projections to 2005, and reduced the central estimate of the next 30 years’ global warming by almost half from the equivalent of 2.3 Cº per century in the pre-final draft to the equivalent of 1.3 Cº per century in the final draft.
Even this much-reduced projection continues inexorably to diverge from the unexciting reality that global temperature has stabilized.
The brainier and more honest advocates of the official story-line know that events have rendered their demands for near-zero CO2 emissions no longer tenable.
Yet they continue to make their strident demands that the West should, in effect, shut itself down. They do so for the following interesting reason. They know that the high-sensitivity theory they said they were more sure about than anything else is nonsense. They know the world will warm by perhaps 1 Cº this century as a result of our activities, and that is all, and that is not a problem.
They also know that within not more than seven years the mean of all five global-temperature datasets may well show no global warming – at all – for 20 years. They know that if CO2 concentration continues to rise at anything like its present rate it will become obvious to all that they were spectacularly, egregiously, humiliatingly in error.
They have concluded, unsurprisingly but furtively, that their only way out is to insist that the science is even more settled than ever and that CO2 emissions must be cut even faster than before.
Then, when global temperature fails to rise as they now know it will fail to rise, they can say that the Pause has happened because CO2 emissions have been stabilized by the policies they so profitably demanded, rather than because the Pause would have happened anyway.
Indeed, one or two of the more flagrantly dishonest global warming crooks are already beginning to claim that the Pause is their doing. One has only to look at the ever-rising gray CO2 curve on the graph to see there is no truth in that.
However, the day of judgment is at hand. A fraud case is being quietly, painstakingly assembled, spanning three continents. When the last pieces of evidence have been carefully collected, half a dozen people will face trial for the serious, imprisonable offense of fraud by misrepresentation.
When that day comes, watch the rats who have over-promoted this profoundly damaging scare scurrying for cover in case they are next. Then, and only then, the scare will be over.
[ALL: Be aware that replies WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY go into the “Review” bin for specific moderator review IF they contain the word “fraud” … (or meet certain other criteria.)
Since, on this thread, it is VERY LIKELY that the “fraud” word will be used or referenced in many replies, EXPECT DELAYS for your replies until they are accepted. Mod Team]
Here is an example of a subsidy, at least in my book. Last year, a USDA representative came to my lemon ranch and informed me that our irrigation system was inefficient and out dated. I was aware the need to replace it and in fact had reserves set aside for the job. I was pleased to learn that I could keep 60% of my replacement money because the taxpayers had funded a program to upgrade farmers’ irrigation systems nationwide. The new system is very nice; and it has reduced my water bill by tens of thousands of dollars per year.
To all of you, please allow me to express my own heartfelt gratitude, and that of my family! The subsidy allowed us to take a wonderful 2 week vacation to the Caribbean.
On the same ranch, I am allowed to depreciate the trees over their expected productive life span. That is not a subsidy, it is simply the government allowing me to keep enough of my own money to replace them when they get too old.
In my mind, there is a big difference between the two. To me, that the government would [buy] me a new irrigation system is appalling. If I could push a button and terminate the program this instant I’d do it. On the other hand, I couldn’t survive if I weren’t allowed to depreciate the trees and other equipment.
RE: However, the day of judgment is at hand. A [phrawd] case is being quietly, painstakingly assembled, spanning three continents. When the last pieces of evidence have been carefully collected, half a dozen people will face trial for the serious, imprisonable offense of [phrawd] by misrepresentation.
+++++++++++
I am so happy to read these words… I hope so much for this to be happening! Very nice post Lord Monckton!
Ross Garnaut loves that “muscular” fracking/nuclear obama, then drifts off to Mars, to make his point?
7 Mar: SMH: Ross Garnaut slams Abbott government’s direct action policy as like a ‘Martian beauty contest’
by Peter Hannam, Jonathan Swan
But Professor Garnaut, who is a strong supporter of having a price on carbon, believes the ultimate cost to the budget of the Abbott government’s climate policy could be much greater than $4 billion a year, given many countries are committing to more ambitious emissions reduction targets…
At the Senate hearing on Friday, Professor Garnaut, who dialed in on a speaker phone, told the senators that it was misleading to compare the Abbott government’s ”Direct Action” program to the Obama administration’s ”muscular direct action”, which was ”highly interventionist”…
The US government was taking much stronger actions than the Abbott government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Garnaut suggested…
In his submission, he also described the direct action plan as part of a Martian beauty contest…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ross-garnaut-slams-abbott-governments-direct-action-policy-as-like-a-martian-beauty-contest-20140307-34atj.html
“Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric auto is – er – also 27%. However, the electric auto requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.”
>>>
I disagree, this is not close to accurate, in real world terms.
Anyone using a Prius knows these are far cheaper to run than a similar sized conventional car. The price at the petrol station counter tells the truth. And it’s not a switch to “electric” cars, it is a switch to hybrids that’s taking place, and it’s a very good thing, as they are between 20% to 35% more fuel efficient, per kilometer driven.
And that is a huge economic advantage to the hybrid owners, compared to a conventional car owner, and that extra dollars or pounds in the pocket and disposable income edge can not be ignored in a competitive system … (if they both feel they must own cars).
6 Mar: Reuters: Nina Chestney: UPDATE 1-UK needs 100 bln pounds more to meet 2020 carbon targets
Stock markets over-value fossil fuel firms (Adds UK government comment in paras 7 and 8)
Britain set up the Green Investment Bank (GIB) in 2012 with 3.8 billion pounds ($6.3 billion) of initial capital to help spur investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency and stipulated it could turn to the debt markets for funding next year depending on the government debt burden.
GIB has estimated that at least 200 billion pounds must be invested in low-carbon infrastructure over the next 10 years, including around 110 billion to replace old nuclear and coal power plants and upgrade the grid…
The Department of Energy and Climate Change expects investment in renewable energy generation projects to total around 40 billion pounds by 2020, which will help support up to 110 billion pounds of investment across the electricity sector, a spokeswoman said.
“We have set the conditions to attract investment into our energy sector which will keep the lights on for years to come,” she added…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/green-investment-britain-idUSL6N0M323R20140306
6 Mar: Reuters: Ernest Scheyder: EPA chief says new U.S. energy rules won’t hobble business
Carbon regulations can be crafted to help offset climate change without “shutting down business in its tracks,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said at a major energy conference on Thursday…
“We don’t have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy,” McCarthy, who has run the EPA for nearly a year, said about new rules she said would be proposed by this summer.
“We know conventional fuels like coal and natural gas are going to continue to play a critical role in a diverse U.S. energy mix.”…
The Houston visit came about a week after McCarthy toured North Dakota, trying to convince the state’s coal, oil and ethanol producers that her agency was not trying to burden their industries with onerous regulations…
“The real, scary cost we need to worry about is the cost of climate inaction,” she said. McCarthy said right now she is focused on power plant regulation and is unsure if she will have time in her term to focus on refiner regulation…
Lynn Good, CEO of Duke Energy Corp, the largest American utility, said she is “encouraged” by McCarthy’s new approach but has already decided building new coal plants are not worth the regulatory risk.
“I don’t see new coal in the mix for Duke,” Lynn said…
Opponents of EPA regulations have often been wrong when they cry “the sky is falling” when new rules are enacted, McCarthy said, trying to ward off any fresh attacks following her speech.
***“We’ve heard this tired argument again and again before,” she said. “And every single time, it’s fallen flat on its face.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-ceraweek-mccarthy-idUSBREA2528V20140306
***that tired old CAGW scary story, McCarthy?
pat says:
March 6, 2014 at 4:39 pm
7 Mar: SMH: Ross Garnaut
>>>
Ross Garnaut needs a permanent sock installation, in his mouth.
He’s quite possibly a richer and a bigger hypocrite than even Al gore.
@bonanzapilot says:
March 6, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Yes, excellent example. The least you could have done in exchange for my largesse was send a post card! 😉
@Unmentionable says:
March 6, 2014 at 4:53 pm
I typically keep a car for 10 years. It would be longer, but people keep running into me at red lights. >:-( How many battery changes will I need to include in my committed costs in order to develop a levelized cost estimate for electric or electric/hybrid vs all-petrol? I think you’ll find that to be the fly in the ointment.
D.J. Hawkins says:
March 6, 2014 at 3:43 pm >>>>>>
My comment at 4:32 pm regarding subsidies was intended to support your argument with a concrete example, Mr. Hawkins.
I am a newbie here and just learning the cross-referencing and other protocols which have evolved on Mr. Watts’ site.
I’ll be up to speed soon.
@Tom
“…computer controlled solenoid operated variable intake and exhaust valves,”
Well spotted. My nephew did his PhD on the subject and produce a working 4-cylinder engine head that functions to 5000 RPM. No cam shaft, total control of valve timing – even the lift is programmable. The transformation of the engine’s efficiency and torque characteristics is profound. The trick to success turned out to be controlling the flight of the valve during an exhaust-open misfire. With diesels this is unlikely plus they operate at much lower speeds so we can expect to see Mercedes diesels competing with the large marine engines soon enough.
Given the new-found bonanzas in natural gas, perhaps the most efficient motive power in the next 50 years will be a compression ignition natural gas engine.
Well clipe, I was going to make a better response now that I’m away from the work desk, but that last adolescent response made it moot. Thanks, I feel better now.
“Tesla’s modest first-quarter profit relied on $68 million from zero-emission-vehicle (ZEV) credits it sold to other, less environmentally friendly car companies under a California emissions mandate. There’s also the $7,500 federal tax break for people who buy electric vehicles, which makes its pricey cars more affordable.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/tesla-q2-second-quarter-earnings-elon-musk-subsidies
Not normally a fan of Mother Jones, but she describes the situation accurately – the only exception being “the $7,500 federal tax break”. Many would assume a “break” is a deduction. In this case it is a credit, which offsets any taxes owed dollar for dollar up to the limit.
I was curious whether a buyer of the vehicle with a tax bill of less than $7,500 in the year of purchase could either sell it to someone else or carry it forward or backward. Apparently, and unlike the producer, he cannot.
My deepest apologies if you think I was being critical of your post, it was definitely +1. I thought that the “winking eye” emoticon would have made it clear I was joshing about the post card. Sorry again.
Can you give me any clues to help me google for this item?
@bonanzapilot says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm
The tax credit is really the same as handing you cash. A lot of it. For the equivalent amount, divide $7,500 by your marginal tax rate. If your marginal rate is 36%, it’s like getting $20,833 from Uncle Sam. Nice break if you can get it. And NOT a subsidy; but you knew that already. Ironically, the higher your tax bracket, the less phantom income you get. On the other hand, if I could afford one, I probably wouldn’t loose any sleep over that detail.
rogerknights says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Crispin in Waterloo says:
March 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm
There is a device that you can install on your engine that runs up the oil pressure before the engine is started. This will triple act the engine life in most cases. That is why it is not included in any car – only large very expensive engines like bulldozers etc.
Can you give me any clues to help me google for this item?
Oh come on, that was WAY too easy;
http://www.google.com/patents/US5511522
D.J. Hawkins says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:11 pm >>>
Wasn’t offended at all. If I were allowed to edit, I would have simply directed the comment to you. I just pushed the “Post” button too soon. 🙂
Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
================
An by the way, D.J. Hawkins, if you are a US taxpayer, a special thanks to you personally for our new irrigation system. It is really nice. 😉
Another Geologist’s Take says:
March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.
++++++++++
The word subsidy is often used to mean two different things. If it means you get to write off expenses, and keep the money you earned, I do not consider that same thing as being given someone else’s money. Green subsidizes and carbon credits often come from other people’s money given to them because the government decides to redistribute wealth. I do not think oil company subsidies come from other people’s pockets as in a redistribution.
If it were not for oil companies, we’d all be more poor and or less wealthy. I do not thing that claim can be made when talking of wind powered generator or PV solar manufacturers. Just sayin’
Another Geologist’s Take says:
March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
I’ve heard this so many times yet I’ve rarely heard of any specific examples. When it comes to oil companies I know of two items that are referred to as subsidies. One is the ability to write off the cost of drilling an exploration well as an expense in the year the well is drilled. The other is the issuance of flow-through shares, the money of which is used to finance exploration drilling, with the investor (not the oil company) getting a tax break. Both of these encourage exploration in the country, province, state in which the tax breaks are offered.
Neither of the above are subsidies in the sense that wind and solar plants can receive direct financial grants or zero interest loans to construct their projects, or they are paid a minimum price for their product which is 2-3 times higher than the market rate. At least with the oil companies they have to spend their own money and sell their product at world prices.
Or are you referring to “other” subsidies?
rogerknights says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:24 pm
“Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy..”
Can you please explain how that would work. I wasn’t aware of it and I should be.
bonanzapilot says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm
“I was curious whether a buyer of the vehicle with a tax bill of less than $7,500 in the year of purchase could either sell it to someone else or carry it forward or backward. Apparently, and unlike the producer, he cannot.”
==============
If you are looking to run a scam, you might have come to the wrong place.
Low altitude with the stall horn blaring, not a good place to be.
D.J. Hawkins says:
March 6, 2014 at 5:27 pm
@Unmentionable says:
March 6, 2014 at 4:53 pm
I typically keep a car for 10 years. It would be longer, but people keep running into me at red lights. >:-( How many battery changes will I need to include in my committed costs in order to develop a levelized cost estimate for electric or electric/hybrid vs all-petrol? I think you’ll find that to be the fly in the ointment.
>>>
Yes that is a further factor.
Nevertheless, Prius Gen-2 battery changes have steadily fallen from the former ~$7,200 AUD to about $4,000 AUD. The Gen-3’s are even cheaper because you don’t have to pull the entire car’s interior apart to change it, so much faster with less Labor and potential for degraded interior fitment, plus Gen-3 uses Li rather than NiCads now so lighter for same energy, but they upper the engine power as well for no effective change to mileage figures, just a lot more zip on the throttle.
I think you would agree the good Lord’s numbers are significantly problematic. He has many intelligent things to say in other areas regarding the debate, but this is not his area, and people should be wary quoting these figures elsewhere, for they will come unstuck.