Shocker: Government mandated trillions in global renewable investment tally

But — wind and solar provide only 1% of 2015 world energy

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The 2017 edition of the REN21 Renewables Global Status Report (GSR) has been released providing a status assessment of global renewable energy use with energy consumption data reflected through 2015.

The report presents the following breakdown of total 2015 world energy consumption provided by fossil, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, biomass and other renewable energy resources.

clip_image002

The category “traditional biomass” (9.1 percent of global energy) reflects the global twigs, leaves and dung fuel sources use while the category “Modern renewables” (10.2 percent of global energy) reflects wind, solar, geothermal and biomass from mostly government crop subsidized energy programs.

Investment data is provided for renewables showing that since 2006 nearly $2.5 trillion has been funneled into government mandated renewable energy programs globally.

clip_image004

Despite this massive global government mandated driven investment in “Modern renewables” the so called “traditional renewables” (twigs, leaves and dung) continue to provide nearly as much global energy as renewables receiving lavish climate alarmist politically directed government funding.

Most significant is the fact that the climate alarmism poster child renewables of wind and solar which are going to “save the world” provided only about 1% of year 2015 global energy consumption (1.6% less geothermal and biomass) which is absolutely pathetic given the massive trillions of dollars in government mandated investment in these technologies that climate alarmists demanded.

What an absolutely monumental waste of global monetary resources that could have done so much to benefit the real global problems of massive poverty, poor health care and inadequate education instead of enriching the pockets of arrogant renewable energy billionaires.

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “Shocker: Government mandated trillions in global renewable investment tally

      • Investment data is provided for renewables showing that since 2006 nearly $2.5 trillion has been funneled into government mandated renewable energy programs globally.

        2.5 trillion over 10 years ; 250 bn/yr . Makes the IPCC’s 100bn per year like a fire sale.

    • Also it solar power system causes air, water & soil pollution [California Energy Commission/Electronic Power Research Unit]. This is presented in a today’s daily newspaper published in Hyderabad/India. It says the manufacturing and use of solar cells causes severe pollution problems and health hazards. This starts from mining to manufacturing of silicon-cells that release poisonous pollution in to the environment. Also, its short life [around 25 years] generates huge quantity of waste.

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Thanks. Looks interesting.
      I have no problem reading French as long as it is not illegible white on black in stupidly small fonts.

      On the basis that few here read French , why not just give the link to the original text which is in English:
      http://www.gasresources.net/

      • Greg thanks for the English version. I usually have little trouble reading French unless it’s written in French

      • Bryan A June 17, 2017 at 4:05 pm
        Greg thanks for the English version. I usually have little trouble reading French unless it’s written in French

        A classic.

    • What the heck does le petrole abiotique have to do with gov’t assisted renewable energy?

      It kinda ranks down there with chemtrails as mythology.

      • I haven’t read all of the extensive material there but it looks like credible science backed up by experiment. ie nothing to do with chemtrail nonsense.

        Since no one has ever proven the biotic origins of oil AFAIK, that may the real “mythology” that we were al fed in school by half-educated educators and goes unquestioned.

        I have always wondered why there was such a wide range of alkanes and other products in something which was supposed to come from dead sea creatures. methane, ethane, butane, propane …. octane ….. the whole series is there.

        On the face of it the abiotic reactions, which have been studied by detailed thermodynamic analysis, chemical potentials and initially reproduced in lab conditions seems more credible to me.

        Maybe you should read some of it and try to come up with a more scientific rebuttal that just dismissing it as “mythology” without thought or evidence.

      • If you asking on the word itself, the reference is religious, you PAY the church for the ability to sin or act against the church teachings, in this use it is paying wasteful amounts of money to give LIP SERVICE and visual proof of renewables as an option!

      • Something that got some cat named Martin Luther all worked up about 500 years ago.

        So worked up, in fact, that he changed the entire course of Western Civilization I don’t think he ever meant for things to turn out the way they did, but that’s history for ya..

      • An indulgence is whatever I don’t deem a necessity. It’s a fundamentally necessary indulgence for you lot.

    • Rob Dawg June 17, 2017 at 12:13 pm

      Well at least the indulgences paid for some nice Cathedrals. Some are quit beautiful, and if you are religious nice places to pray in as say compared to a wind turbine. X-mas mass is not the same in front of a spinning turbine and the cathedrals have such beautiful acoustics.

      Myself I’m glad we got the Cathedrals.

      michael

      • Roger Knights June 17, 2017 at 3:05 pm

        “The Dynamo and the Virgin”

        No Roger , have not come across it, will read. I was just having a bit of fun.
        I have been in cathedrals and think we are better for having them.
        You can be critical as to how they came into being, but they are a work of man and magnification.

        I hope you feel the same

        michael

      • Roger Knights June 17, 2017 at 3:05 pm

        Started to read will need time, not for an afternoon. Thank you

        michael

  1. As I keep saying, the anti-human, anti-environmental CACA sc@m has cost the world tens of trillions of dollars and tens of millions of human lives. Birds and bats must have been sacrificed in their hundreds of millions, at least.

    • I know, breaks my heart, and where are the protectors of animals?? Seeing the evil of the WWF actions to shove indigenous people, AND animals out of areas where they DO coexist in nature..for forced ‘protection’ by man (and commercial cultivation of palm oil and other salable products. see FB: Pandaleaks page or the book or youtube videos exposing this travesty.

  2. From the article: “What an absolutely monumental waste of global monetary resources that could have done so much to benefit the real global problems of massive poverty, poor health care and inadequate education instead of enriching the pockets of arrogant renewable energy billionaires.”

    My sentiments exactly! A monumental waste of money.

    The markets should decide how money is invested, not bureaucrats.

    • But we need to put vinyl/aluminum panels on public high rises to make them “sustainable”. The tipping point and all you know. To err is human, to screw it up totally takes government. Nothing against insulation, but that was a profoundly bad move. There was a reason that Adams modeled the British Civil servants (who are neither civil nor do they serve you except the way the bull does the cow) in his Vogons.

    • A monumental THEFT of money, TA. THEFT of money. Under the guise that there is insulation you can suspend around a light warmed rock that makes more light come back out of a rock having less reach it.

      • You have a point, High_Octane. At least we got the Paris Accord theft stopped.

        Although, I guess that only applies to the good ole USA. The Paris Accord still has the other developed nations on the hook for billions of dollars annually.

  3. What has to be an astounding lack of knowledge of future energy sources, these govts haven’t spent a penny, relativelt speaking, on what is far and away the most surefire promising revolution in energy technology- molten salt nuclear reactors. Cheap to build and even cheaper to operate and totally harmless and extremely proliferation resistant, they are proven technologies that have benefitted from new materials that make them not only superb energy technologies, but practical as well. Able to load-follow and be located virtually anywhere, they are not confined, as traditional nuclear reactors are, to operating as baseload providers only, meaning they not only do not need peak fossil fuel suplemental capacity, but can actually replace such capacity for all except extreme peak providers (very fast reacting open cycle gas turbines). These can be built in a factory entirely, require little in the way of site preparation, and can produce power cheaper than any other technology, fossil fuels included. Govts can be so stupid, especially when acting from pressure from equally stupid green supporters. There’s nothing high tech about either solar or wind – both provide
    low valued power and require fossil fuel backup capacity. If you have solar and wind, you have to have fossil fuel capacity, a requirement that apparently escapes the attention of the fossil-fuel-hating green folks.

    • Better yet, as molten salt reactors produce steam like any other nuclear, coal, or gas power plant, the molten salt reactor could just be planted right next to the steam turbines of those plants and the proper pipes reconnected. The steam turbines are already in existence, so that part is done.

    • arthur4563;
      You missed 3 words out.
      …. these govts haven’t spent a penny “of our money”, relatively speaking, ….. .
      The point being that governments don’t have any money of their own. They just have some of ours and, boy, don’t they know how to waste it!

    • arthur4563. Thank you for the information. But until we all work to stop the waste of taxpayer resources and natural resources on so called renewables, there will not be progress in the direction you suggest.
      If we keep voting for politicians who perpetrate the renewables fraud on taxpayers, nothing will change. Politicians think they gain votes and contributions by going “green”. They need to be shown that there are more votes in realistic and efficient energy developments than in chasing fraud and ignorance. We should all examine our politicians and reward those who support realistic energy policies with our votes, contributions, and work in their campaigns. These three things are the coin of politicians that need to change.

  4. Stupid socialist wealth redistribution tricks…

    Meanwhile the resources by fracking are immensely cheap and far more efficient in energy necessary work.

    Meanwhile consider this natural gas powered vehicle that was on Jay Leno’s Garage five years ago…

    Magnolia Special – Jay Leno’s Garage

    Its very cool…

      • You may want to think hard about purchasing a Lego car. The Porsche did not do well in crash tests.

      • Here’s a thought.
        Instead of putting trillions into renewables, put trillions into building these things and into cloning Al Gore. Put one Al in the trunk of each and they’d have an inexhaustible source of hot air for power.
        Al-powered SUVs! Win-Win!
        (Though a billion or two might need to go into soundproofing the trunk.)

      • If he just needs to breathe, not talk, the fix is easy. Just have a device to give him a sharp rap on the head from time to time. :))

      • SMC,
        I notice the trunk seems to have survived.
        Perhaps put the trillions into a rear-engined car?

      • Err, umm… I was under the impression Porsches were rear engine cars. LOL… Also, did you notice the crash test dummies were ejected from the passenger compartment, in pieces. :))

    • Putting up a visible-from-space neon sign that reads We’re Stupid would have been much cheaper and just as effective.

    • ——-
      “Robert Kernodle June 17, 2017 at 1:19 pm
      But “it sends a message to the world”.

      Yeah, the message that people are stupid.”
      ——-

      And hey guess who is rendering them so stupid? The very same Academic scientific frauds who taught everyone’s children that the planet Venus has a bizarre heating effect – when in fact probes landing there show clearly that pound for pound, watt for watt, the atmosphere of Venus is actually cooler than the atmosphere of our own planet would be,
      if the atmosphere was of that density,
      and if it were receiving Venus’ sunlight load.

      Venus is a bit closer so the amount of light striking it’s about 1.9 times that striking us, and the atmosphere’s very very dense. It’s like 91, or 93 atmospheres – and an atmosphere is 14.whatever lbs/sq.in.

      Venus’ carbon dioxide atmosphere is a little bit _____________________(warmer/cooler) than Earth’s atmosphere, when adjusted for pressure and delivered sunlight.

      Modern government employees have both children and adults leaving the educational system answering ”warmer” when in fact,

      Venusian atmosphere runs several dozens or scores of degrees cooler,
      than it would be if it were composed of Earth’s atmospheric mix.

      The very government employees spending 20 years teaching children and adults these things

      are the ones squealing that the sky is getting hot due to magical gas that makes things hotter, that it makes cooler.

      And every single educational group in the Western World is swearing it’s all trew, yew jist gotta buhlieve!

      There’s actually a couple of threads about this very thing here on WUWT –

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/

      Here’s the Harvard physicist who trolled the author of the article exposing this fraud declaring

      ”I’m going to debunk you ;)”

      http://motls.blogspot.co.id/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html

      Here’s the original author, Steve Goddard’s follow-up post to ‘hyperventilating on venus’

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

      There’s another individual whose explanation of that end of the fraud is incomparable and his name is
      Harry Dale Huffman. He is some kind of author who is also a trained physicist whose gas-energy mechanics are absolutely flawless.

      His site is truly that of a physicist not a journalist so you have to sorta get used to the 1990s wallpapers on his site but if you have some gas mechanics training under your belt you’ll see how crystal clear Mr Huffman makes it, that the atmosphere’s temperature isn’t even up for debate: it’s established as an international physics standard because it’s based on pressure – not composition of the atmosphere.

      http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.id/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

      Mr. Huffman’s explanation of atmospheric physics is quite thorough because he refuses to attribute false analogies and speaks using pretty rigorously monitored language so that what he says is absolute in it’s scientific clarity, – even for those who aren’t thoroughly familiar with the relatively short but not often reviewed mathematics of gas temperature and volume etc – gases’ matter-energy relationships.

  5. In northern Vermont most Vermonters still burn cord wood and wood pellets for heat during our (warming -sarc) winters because it is the most affordable form of heat. Electricity use during non heating season is minimal. We burn 6-8 cords of wood a winter which is 60% of the cost of oil and 50% of the cost of propane per million BTU’s. This is in a well-insulated home. Cold climate heat pumps and other fantasies are not affordable here for the average Vermonter, particularly with the expensive power provided by wind mills and moon beams.

      • Right jayhd, keep electing the socialists and supporting loony academics with taxpayer funds and things will never change for the better.

      • The population in the western half of the state is more than double the eastern half where we live. They vote for magic energy, drug legalization, anti federal local immigration policy and crushing taxes to pay for their agenda.

        Our vote does not count.

  6. What the governments should have done was build the best, safe traditional nuclear reactors, even those like the moving pebble bed designs that are walk away safe and develop better ones like the liquid thorium salt ones, But just saying that doesn’t help.

    There is too much money in renewables for government policies to be changed easily and too many voters have been brainwashed. Really the best hope is a new source of energy and I’m still forecasting at least one major demo of LENR or SunCell this year with commercialization starting in 2018. Time will tell.

    • Adrian

      There isn’t a working example of a pebble bed reactor. When South Africa announced they had discovered some secret sauce that would make a technology rejected in the eighties as unviable by the Germans, everyone sat up and took notice. If anyone could, it was probably the South Africans. Years and billions of dollars later it turned out it was just a scheme to keep the physicists occupied so they wouldn’t go overseas to work on neutron bombs in bad places.

      After the fall of the Wall, a lot of Russian experts were unemployed and we are way worse off for that. The North Korean missiles are being built by about forty Russian rocket scientists. Imagine what the the situation would be if the RSA experts were loose cannons in the Third World.

      When the last of the teams retired, they shut the Pebble Bed Reactor project down saying, ‘It won’t work’.

  7. “world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

    If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

    At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

    Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

    As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

    As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

    It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

    A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/

    • 1) Onshore wind turbines do not use rare-earth magnets.
      2) A lot of “new” steel is made from recycled steel,
      3) Once built, the base and tower will last several time longer than a gas turbine, so replacement costs become competitive between the two technologies.

      • how much area does a gas turbine take up. Not sure Russia wants a wind turbine on every acre.

      • 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean. Not to mention that the capacity factor increases with off shore installations. Don’t worry about Russia.

      • Once built, the base and tower will last several time longer than a gas turbine

        Well, maybe not.

        All nice and shiny, brand new, and it still did that fall over crunchy-crunch thing that they do.
        Diller, Nebraska, June 12.

      • @ Luis Anastasia
        It does not take a very big turbine to produce as much useful power as your typical windmill. I saw a pair of turbines sitting on the roof of a power substation on Grand Cayman Is. The turbines looked to be about the same size as the engines on an old Boeing 727 Whisperjet, and not anywhere near the size of engines on more modern aircraft. In this modern day and age, such turbines cost a tiny fraction of what a windmill costs.

        For amusement, Google up “abandoned Wind Farm”. You will find tens of thousands of abandoned windmills anywhere from 10 to 40 years old. In your example, you have one windmill kept going as a “trophy” or “vanity” project, possibly for the publicity. I wonder how many times they had to rebuild it to keep it running, and at what cost.

      • OK, TonyL, let me make it simpler for you, …… show me a gas turbine that can run for 10 years…. (I want to see how extensive your knowledge is of gas turbine maintenance)

      • PS TonyL, note in the 40 year wind turbine and all the “abandoned” ones, the towers they were built with are still standing……correct? (Remember I said: Once built, the base and tower will last several time longer than a gas turbine.” )

      • Luis Anastasia June 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm

        Tonyl: show me a gas turbine that can run for 40 years

        Luis, will these do?

        GAS-TURBINE UNIT PUSHES PAST 300,000 HR OF SERVICE

        El Paso Natural Gas Co.’s Pecos River, N.M., facility boasts what manufacturer GE Industrial & Power Systems, Latham, N.Y., believes to be the world’s oldest and longest running operating GE gas turbine units in commercial service.

        El Paso’s Unit 3, a GE MS3002A mechanical-drive gas turbine, has logged more than 300,000 fired hr since installation in September 1953. Alongside the Frame 3 unit are two other GE Frame 3s, Units 1 and 2, which have accumulated more than 266,500 and 293,600 fired hr, respectively.

        El Paso has 63 GE gas turbines in operation, primarily Frame 3s and Frame 5s, including 28 1950s vintage GE gas turbines in various pipeline facilities throughout the U.S. Southwest. According to GE, more than 600 units of the more than 5,800 GE gas turbines installed or on order have accumulated 100,000 hr or more of commercial service.

        More than 85 units have exceeded 200,000 hr in commercial operation.

        http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-92/issue-9/in-this-issue/gas-processing/gas-turbine-unit-pushes-past-300000-hr-of-service.html

      • “Luis Anastasia June 17, 2017 at 1:58 pm
        3) Once built, the base and tower will last several time longer than a gas turbine, so replacement costs become competitive between the two technologies.”

        Your not comparing like with like. Your comparing the life of the wind-farm infrastructure with the life of the gas plant generating unit. Pathetic. Try again.

      • 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean. Good luck with building on the 70%. That will be a lot of onboard diesel generators to keep supplied if they ever manage to build in the extreme depths.

      • phaedo, it’s not a problem of comparing “like-to-like,” the problem is that we don’t have enough experience with wind farms to know if they are longer lasting than a gas plant. Give it 20 years or so, then we can figure it out

      • Onshore and offshore wind turbines use rare earth magnets to keep the weight and size of the generator down.

        If you don’t believe me, I’ll find a decent reference. Meanwhile, you find out what your wind turbines use in their generator.

      • Luis Anastasia,
        I would be more than willing to give another 20/30/40 years to prove/disprove cost viability and ROI so long as you are willing to NOT force me to give up my stable cheap and unsubsidized current power sources and make my buy far more expensive energy from inherently unreliable sources in the interim.

      • Good job Samuel C Cougar, it just goes to show you that …….

        Thank you, Luis Anastusasia, I always strive to do a good job. Maybe you ought to do likewise, more often.

      • Ric Werme, I suggest you investigate the differences between direct drive and gear driven generator/alternators in wind turbines. When you’ve done that, you’ll understand why off-shore units predominately use rare-earth magnets, and on-shore units don’t. Note my use of the word “predominately” because if you dig hard enough, you’ll find exceptions, but you can’t dispute the “rule.”

    • Luis perhaps we should just line up the power sources on a nil wind day and compare output. Its a bit of a nonsense worrying about how long something lasts if it doesnt do useful work anyway.

      • But did you know that in some cases, the marginal cost of electricity could actually be negative? When there’s far more supply than demand (typically overnight), prices can head towards zero dollars, and even into negative territory. How is this possible you may ask? Tax credits allocated to renewable sources, such as wind generation, allow operators to make money even when prices are negative (and the cost of marginal generation for wind is zero since wind is free). For example, if the locational market price of energy is -$13/MWh, but a wind farm is receiving $23/MWh in tax credits, then they’re actually making $10/MWh. This has occurred quite a few times in Texas due to the abundant wind generation in the state (this also occurs elsewhere with wind and hydro generation), as well as the fact that ERCOT is basically an electricity island (power generated in TX has to be consumed in TX, not shipped to nearby markets where there may be more demand, such as in more connected markets like PJM).

        Wind generates about 10% of the power in Texas, far more than any other state (US average is 4.4%), and at times when the wind is blowing strong, it can generate as much as 40% of the power at a given time (again, usually overnight). Texas utilities are rolling out programs offering free electricity at night (TXU’s plan is 9pm to 6am) to entice customers to shift demand and usage to later hours when power is plentiful and cheap (these programs charge slightly higher prices during the day, so you’re essentially penalized if you don’t actually shift your consumption pattern)

        So basically the “ZERO cost” wind energy isn’t really Zero cost as it is actually paid for through Government Subsidies (basically the money you and I pay for Federal Income Taxes) If it weren’t for the $23/MWH paid by the Federal Tax Coffers, the supposed Cheapness of Zero Cost Wind would be realized in the actual rates paid by Texas Electric Customers but as it is, they are now forced to wait until after 9pm to begin cooling their homes or pay a penalty in higher electric rates for using it when it’s actually needed.
        What a racket (smells like RICO to me)

      • ” when it’s actually needed.” ? Do you mean like in the middle of the day when the sun is overhead resulting in maximum output of a PV solar panel?

      • Come on Luis, you are certainly aware that the Hottest part of the day doesn’t occur at solar power optimum angle, solar noon, but rather 3:30 to 4:30 pm, well paste maximum efficiency for solar generation. Further, power usage peaks around 6pm when most people are trying to cool their houses

        As this graphic from the CAISO clearly demonstrates. People aren’t going to sit in the heat until 9pm so the choice is Pay the Subsidy or Pay the Penalty

      • Michael darby (replying to Bryan A)

        Bryan A, CASIO doesn’t server (sic) Texas

        The electric energy pattern shown is that plot is similar worldwide to all utilities in all modern areas of all countries. (Often, the a early morning peak (as people awake and prepare breakfast before leaving for work, school, and traffic) is higher – but that is a quibble to a worldwide pattern and varies with school holidays as we are now in the northern hemisphere.) This comment, and the other about “particles” bypassing particulate filters, and the other claiming that a late afternoon peak implies AC is run only in the late afternoon, show that you have no actual idea what you are talking about. They are worth repeating because they do the value of destroying all credibility you may pretend to pontificate about.

        But, I do grant that – with today’s socialistic pope – pontification is all the enviro’s can do well.

      • PS Bryan A, anybody that lives in a high temperature environment knows that you don’t turn on the A/C in the late afternoon. You run the system from early morning throughout the day. It takes less energy to keep a cool house cool, then to cool down a hot house.

      • You are mistaken RACookPE1978. You said: “that plot is similar worldwide to all utilities in all modern areas of all countries.” Never ever say “all.” You neglect seasonal differences especially in places with electric heat in winter.
        .
        1) Portugal: https://www.intechopen.com/source/html/18668/media/image3.png
        .
        2) Iceland: http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/elec_load_demand.gif
        .
        3) Florida: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-369-02/images/pf369-21.gif (Notice November heating)

      • Michael darby

        You are mistaken RACookPE1978. You said: “that plot is similar worldwide to all utilities in all modern areas of all countries.” Never ever say “all.” You neglect seasonal differences especially in places with electric heat in winter.

        What???
        First, you cannot compare Portugal (very low industrial and fabrication loads, no AC in homes and little in AC industrial buildings, only modest AC in the commercial buildings that do exist) with Florida (southern US highly populated with modern buildings made since 1950’s and 1960’s; AC in every commercial, warehouse, house and office building, and in most industrial buildings; with a typical US residential and commercial life); and Iceland (highly concentrated but lightly populated residential and commercial use, almost no rural population and no AC at all but high heating loads.) Nevertheless, despite these differences the overall residential electric useage pattern remains visible: Low at night, a small peak in the morning, low through the midday period when solar peaks, then highest in afternoon and early evening. It is ONLY the commercial electric use that resembles the available solar power curve – commercial use in the graph does peak near midday, but look at how much solar power is available in Iceland.

        Further, electrical distribution (grids, transmission, power supplies, and transformers) MUST be reliable all days, 24 hours per day, 12 months a year. Not in selected hours of selected months of selected climates as the UN’s political planning requires in their IPCC propaganda campaigns.

        My statement stands as written. Your attempted selection of misleading electric usage graphs shows your inability to understand real world physics and electrical engineering facts.

      • So askith: Luis Anastasia June 18, 2017 at 10:28 am

        ” when it’s actually needed.” ? Do you mean like in the middle of the day when the sun is overhead resulting in maximum output of a PV solar panel?

        The BIG question for everyone is, ….. what hour, … of what day, …… of what month, …….. is the Sun overhead in/at Dallas, Texas?

      • My point precisely Mike
        Solar Noon falls hours before the Hottest part of the day and well before peak usage which still places it among the higher proposed utility tariff rates. People will need use the energy when it’s needed and not wait until after 9pm.

    • Good commentary Richard. After reading leftist blogs about the benefits of wind and solar you realize it’s all crap. The big the say is that wind and solar make up more than 50% of new capacity. In reality that means new generation is only about 15% Vivien the inefficiencies of wind and solar. Since they are about 3% of electrical generation. By 2040 it will rise to about 5 to 6%. Hardly with talking about. By 2040 that 15% will just be replacing existing wind and solar

    • That’s right Latitude, and to make matters worse, the EPA is currently being dismantled, and water regulations rolled back.

      • It’s an excellent thing provided you don’t live downstream of a coal mine or ash pond.

      • The EPA will be rolling back the NON POLLUTING areas within the environment – like CO2, but will still do a good (hopefully) job of cleaning up the POLLUTING components….exactly in line with the stated goals of President Trump.
        So….whats the issue???

      • @ Luis Anastasia
        You do not want to live downstream of an EPA environmental cleanup project either.
        Here is the Animas river after the EPA got done with it.

        Heavy metals and acid.
        Such an efficient organization. Our tax dollars at work.

      • @ Luis Anastasia
        What’s wrong with living downstream of a coal mine? I just got done with MSHA Part 48 training and several recruiters came in to talk about careers in coal mining. The coal mines in my area are hiring.

      • What did you learn about rain water leaching heavy metals out of mine tailings? You do realize that now that the reg has been rescinded? The mining companies can dump the tailings where the runoff will not be contained. If you get your water from a well, please have it tested periodically.

      • Actually, its NOT academic for me, as it can be for a lot of people.
        My family came from a coal mining area, my grand father and father worked in an underground coal mine.

        But, first, I agree 100% with you Luis Anastasia, anything that pollutes in the manner you are highlighting, SHOULD and MUST be made good.
        The rationale behind it all however seems 90% motivated with this nasty old CO2 thing – which is a red-herring in the ‘pollution’ argument.
        I only wished the so called, Green Movement, would focus on what IS doing harm, and not that which isn’t.

        My take on it is
        Green Movement = Everything.
        The Environmental Movement = Physical pollutants, such as might be found ‘down-stream’ from any mining/manufacturing activity.
        That steel and concrete used in the Green Movements ideal energy production sources, comes from somewhere.

        What is the real crime here is, the two of us have the same goals, so should be working shoulder to shoulder….but the manner some aspects are portrayed, keeps us from having that rewarding and production association.

      • Yes, I believe you are spot on with regards to our “goals”…..now, another thing that bugs me is that coal ash is not regulated by the EPA, and I think it should be….for the same reason that it leaches heavy metals.

      • Mmmm…..indeed.
        We won’t always share the opinions, but we do (I feel) the goals.

        Unfortunately, many seem to fall into ‘one camp or the other’, and by doing so, seem to be forced to support ‘their side’ regardless.

        I’m totally anti the belief in the reasons for the climate changing according to the ‘consensus’ opinion.
        That doesn’t though, stop me wanting very stringent rules regarding other issues that surround pollution.
        You would NOT want me to be ‘King of The World’, as I would make Mr Trump look like a pussy cat – in matters pollution.
        But CO2…go for it!!

      • Luis Anastasia June 17, 2017 at 5:08 pm

        Which color of coal concerns you?

        michael

      • You mean there are heavy metals in the ground?!? Who’da thunk it! I guess it’s just like there’s radiation all around us… OMG!! The End Is Nigh!!!

      • “Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output”

        I don’t think coal is going anywhere.

      • the EPA is currently being dismantled….

        Since they did such a wonderful job the past 45 years………
        …cut out the windmill chasing and they might be able to focus on their real job
        But so far they have been about the most inept money wasting…over reaching.. agency we have

      • News Flash: Coal mining companies are not Captain Planet villains who would be dumping pollution on everything just for kicks if not for EPA suits telling them not to. Leftivists baffled. Film at 11.

      • D B H.. I liked your augmentative approach to Luis, very polite. And Luis, good for you expressing your views here (in a difficult environment). To you Luis, as you might read more here over time, everyone here wants clean air, clean water and clean ground. If we could take the Billions of $$ away from the CO2 mitigation boogeyman and put it towards this use, there would be no argument here.

      • Luis,
        I presume you realise that every day you eat and drink uranium, bismuth, lead, arsenic, antimony, zinc, gold, silver, etc, etc, etc.
        Some of these metals could be in astronomical concentrations – approacking the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    • Luis Anastasia June 17, 2017 at 5:08 pm:
      “…Yes, I believe you are spot on with regards to our “goals”…..now, another thing that bugs me is that coal ash is not regulated by the EPA, and I think it should be….for the same reason that it leaches heavy metals……”

      No, not exactly true:
      https://www.epa.gov/coalash.

      “…..EPA supports the environmentally sound recycling of coal ash and has developed regulations on the safe disposal of coal ash in landfills and surface impoundments……”.

      Luis, do a little homework before you make unsound claims like the one quoted above. It took me about 10 seconds to find the EPA website page above with a Google search.

  8. If it needs to be said, the enormous cost and opportunity cost in terms of the supposed purpose has so far been utterly pointless:

    Insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” (attributed to Einstein).

    • When I was born, the concentration was 0.03%. When I die, the concentration will be 0.04%.
      What have I done!!!!!
      [forgive them Lord. They know not what they do}.
      The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.

  9. Anthony please get someone like Willis to counter article in the London Spectator saying that the heat is in the oceans and there is no pause

    • Why not so it yourself if you think you are right? I’ve read the article. Seems to be well supported by current thinking.

      • I read the article too. It’s most contentious sentence is quoted in red at the centre of the page, thus; “New analyses suggest that seal levels could rise by up to a metre, maybe more, in our children’s lifetimes.” How scientific are the words “suggest”, “could” and “maybe”? I read it, and decided it was Bullsh*t.

      • Derek

        That is nonsense. If they used the word “will” you would be all over it saying they can’t possibly “know.” Suggest could and maybe are the only options when an event has not yet happened. If you are so clever, tell be what they could say if they genuinely believe in their work?

  10. “The category “traditional biomass” (9.1 percent of global energy) reflects the global twigs, leaves and dung fuel sources use “. Except that this ‘traditional biomass’ is predominantly commercial logging of complete prime forests for the wood pellet industry. So no ‘twigs and leaves’ but complete massive trees.

    • And the ‘wood pellet industry’, made acceptable as part of the ‘renewables’ push, by the Green Movement.

      Hmmm…seems at odds with some of the goals they are supposed to be promoting, wouldn’t you agree?

    • The wood pellet industry, at least for electricity production, is the biomass section of ‘modern renewables’, ‘traditional biomass’ has been losing market share.

    • Traditional biomass includes trees, branches, forest slash, agricultural residues and animal dung. By far the larger fraction is trees and parts of trees.

      The definition of the term provided seems to hint that traditional biomass does not include trees. Odd, that.

  11. … since 2006 nearly $2.5 trillion has been funneled into government mandated renewable energy programs globally

    This probably explains the lack of growth in the great “recession” from 2008 onwards.

  12. However, let’s not forget that that 2trillion dollars (little finger in mouth) didn’t get burnt. It ended up in bank accounts around the world, mostly Switzerland I suspect

    • That would be the biomass portion of “modern renewables”, not the traditional biomass referred to as twigs and leaves.

      • More pellet madness. These pellets aren’t going anywhere. One silo down, three to go. Port Arthur, Texas has had enough. I would think the Germans will look elsewhere, for their biomass.

        “Less than 2-weeks after a German Pellets silo collapsed at the Port of Port Arthur, a hot spot has been discovered in an adjacent silo.

        On Friday, the United Command Team was made aware that internal sensor readings on the silo adjacent to the collapsed silo has developed an internal hot spot, Risa Carpenter, public information officer with the city of Port Arthur,said in a press release.

        “This hot spot is being continuously monitored while solutions are explored. Every option is being considered at this point, ranging from internal nitrogen injection to controlled demolition,” she said.”

        http://www.panews.com/2017/06/16/hot-spot-develops-in-silo-next-to-collapsed-german-pellets-silo/

      • Ted, there was an interesting documentary on dutch television, where the biomass electricity contact person firmly believed that the pellets he burned were made from from twigs and leaves rest wood. The documentary makers went to the pellet factory and filmed the trees of cleared prime forests (so not government sustained forest!) being trucked into the factory. The majority of the trees is from private land where there is no govenment control. In the US a land owner can do whatever he wants with his trees.

      • Hans Erren: Paper companies have been farming trees for generations now. Fast growing trees are a cash crop just like corn or wheat are cash crops. Paper companies and wood product companies are among the best forest managers around since they don’t have to bow to political or PC pressures.

      • Hans Erren, see figure 7 of the report on page 47. All of biomass electricity is classified as ‘modern renewables’. Figure 2 (page 31) shows that traditional biomass only grew at a 1.2% rate over the study period, while biomass electricity grew by 6% in 2016 alone (p46). The increase in clear cutting is based on government incentives for alternatives to fossil fuels.

  13. Einstein’s observation is directly applicable to alternative energy policies. Solar projects all over the world are failing. The $500 million Ivanpah and $500 million Solyndra solar projects in California and the $400 million Abound Solar project in Colorado are three notable failures heavily subsidized by the government. Current alternative energy technology will be obsolete before future alternative energy projects can even be commissioned. The idea of replacing carbon-based energy sources with alternative energy sources that are not ready for prime time is sheer lunacy.

    • The key here is ‘not ready for prime time’. We will eventually, at some point down the road that is impossible to predict — 100, 200, 300 years in the future — really and truly run out of petrol. Chances are the replacement energy technology that we end up with won’t look much like these quixotic and premature attempts the government is throwing money at now. Maybe it’ll be thorium reactors or nuclear fusion or something we haven’t even discovered yet. It seems to me though that the energy density for both solar and wind are too low to ever be viable replacements for fossil fuels in a way that ensures continued economic growth and development.

  14. When we’ve finally gotten serious about the global warming s_cam, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.

  15. There is a large revolt going on around the world against these alternative energy subsidy racketeers, that goes completely unreported by the liberal mainstream media.

    Wind Industry Thugs Sue for Subsidies: NextEra’s Reign of Legal Terror Escalates

    Having grown fat on billions of dollars worth of subsidies and tax breaks, the likes of NextEra are now launching legal action against local governments standing up for the communities that they represent. Standing between a wind power outfit and an endless stream of subsidies is like standing between the fat kid and his lunch; bound to end in conflict.

    https://stopthesethings.com/2017/06/02/wind-industry-thugs-sue-for-subsidies-nexteras-reign-of-legal-terror-escalates/

  16. What is obvious is that our current population if too large to be getting along without fossil fuels. If we do not decrease our population by the time the fuel runs out Mankind will be in big trouble,

  17. “could have done so much (for) …. adequate education.”

    Thank heavens government here didn’t pump that kind of cash into what they would have called adequate education. Third world education is superior to the information-free, designer-brained, prescribed and proscribed education that the sick-beast Western World mills for our children. I am supolying “enriched” and antidote education to a grand son as I did for my children. One ‘science’ course had an ‘x’ marked on Baffin Island with caption “future site of summer Olympics ‘!

  18. As many of you regulars here on WUWT have seen me write, the Russians
    are correct. It is not “fossil fuel”, it is hydrocarbons. They are produced deep
    in the earth, and rise as pressure above is relieved. They rise all around the
    earth, but are not evenly distributed.

    This means that they are “renewable”, and the supply is endless, as far as
    humans are concerned.

    I devised a simple test to prove this. The test is based on the fact that upland
    soil, soil not in a floodplain, and in the presence of adequate moisture, owes its
    richness to the amount of natural gas (not just methane) upwelling through it.
    Aerobic microbes consume the hydrocarbons.

    These microbes “exhale” CO2, feeding the stomata, and the life cycle of the
    microbes feed the roots of the plants.

    The darker the soil, the richer, in most cases. The dark brown to black, very
    deep soil in Kansas, the first area I tested, has a large amount of upwelling
    natural gas.

    The soil around Atlanta, Ga. has little to no natural gas. The soil is very poor,
    because the shield is very near the surface, and blocks upwelling hydrocarbons.

    The foregoing is the result of old fashioned science. I developed a theory, and then
    tested.

    My methodology and procedures have previously been published several times
    on WUWT, It is a simple test and the equipment required can be rented.

    For some reason, some people, with the Western energy Paradigm, persist
    in deriding my lack of a degree from Harvard as proof that I am wrong, rather
    than replicating my work, and finding that we do, indeed, have a never ending
    supply of hydrocarbons available to us.

    My favorite Harvard related story. My alltime favorite professor, who was Harvard
    trained and was also a Southern Baptist preacher, received a dispensation,
    purchased during the depression, by one of his wealthy Harvard friends, for
    forgiveness for all the sins that he had ever committed and all the sins that he
    would ever commit. Dr. McCloud said that that was “Harvard Humor”.

    • Even if you had a degree from Harvard, it wouldn’t matter. That school isn’t where you go for geology. Try the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona, or Penn State.

      • And, even if he was from there, – where you went to school’s got zero to do with it. Whether you’re right is what matters.

        The thousands of us who told the climate cucks the atmosphere isn’t a hot box but a thermally conductive, freezing cold compressible fluid bath, didn’t all go to Harvard.

        Several of the men who put up experiments disproving MAJOR elements of the ”magic gais dun made the sky git hot YaW!” story have no degree at all that I know of. The man who posted up that famous experiment proving that infrared doesn’t warm water/oceans, but rather cools them, is one of them.

        I can’t remember his name. He wrote or writes rather, some kind of science fiction books maybe? I can’t remember but I can think of a lot of people whose degrees had zero to do with the devastation they brought to the Magic Gais made the sky git hot fraud.

        People going around claiming a cold thermally conductive, light blocking bath can warm the light warmed rock it blocks light to and strips energy from conductively, tend to find themselves rebuked and mocked at every single turn.

        As have those who claimed the atmosphere can warm the planet. That proof didn’t come by way of the most Highly decorated and educated pimps.

        It came from real working scientists whose degrees either aren’t actually in the science major they worked in to show the world the Hooterville Heater is fake, or their degrees had them working in relate field but weren’t research degrees.

        University degrees are not by any means an indication that a person’s got sufficient education and morality, to tell the truth.

        So I’m definitely agreeing with Michael Darby, and look forward to seeing some of the stuff you’ve written Jerry Henson.

        Sounds like an interesting subject, and if you wanna link, go ahead, I’ll read it, and if you don’t come back by and do that I’ll try to remember to look you up and read about it. I understand the efforts amateur researchers go to, to get to the truth, coming from a background of having business owners in my family, who were also scientists, both degreed and not.

        [You have 5 different user-id’s. Chose one. .mod]

  19. ‘which is absolutely pathetic given the massive trillions of dollars in government mandated investment in these technologies that climate alarmists demanded.’

    Not relevant. Greenies are smiling and demanding more. They don’t care how much of YOUR money they have to spend.

    • “Let’s put faces on the suffering that these climate charlatans are causing.”

      Let’s name the “climate charlatans” and expose the waste of resources and tax payer’s money..

  20. These are great fact sheets presented. What’s even more astounding is this has the back drop of a “high carbon cost” regulatory government policy. Where would the results be with a rational deregulated ANWR access, a clean coal investment campaign and more open off shore policies? To name just three major Greenshirt suppression’s of supply. 2-3 million barrels DAILY an easy under production number from the U.S. due to green governance and domination. Did any of this hurt established capital interests? “Big oil” for example? Of course not, they benefited. They got paid more to produce less. The general society endured the pain of high costs and malinvestment. This only an oil example, it’s much larger then this.

    In a lower priced carbon world the bones will be popping out of the skin of the green blob sector pretty fast. Take the massive subsidies away, open supply and it’s a 50X sector bust that happened in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The stupid of the moment though is 50x greater then when the Reagan Reformation began. The Green Blob much more deeply entrenched and the critical thinking skills of the society immeasurably far worse as is reflected in AGW globalism and belief systems.

    Another new high for TSLA last week, $7500 per car fed subside cooked in the 400k next generation backlog, it nets no carbon savings on a standard electric grid charge it might be mentioned, another Ethanol level scam. 60% of the drive-trains fail under 60k miles and they’re massively complicated and expensive to repair. The cars are massively toxic with lead, cobalt and lithium contaminates to name a few. Far worse then solar which is pretty bad in itself.

    The stupid is vast, there is no Reagan leadership logic front and center, a good chunk of the new wealth oligarchs are working the machinery for the Green Blob. The loss of efficiency in the energy sector can be well hidden for some time and in the end most who will die in the high cost energy scam will be politically second/third class global members. Another epic delusion of populist leftist policy that kills the very people the soap box left virtue signals about daily.

    The Green Blob is in fact the modern incorporation of collectivist government evil and delusions. The former Soviet ideal of demagogic poison neatly packaged for children’s consumption in a tin-foil green wrapper. The tell-tale symptoms of anti-Americanism, collectivist wealth redistribution, elitism condescending and administrative authority over markets in the usual know-it-all MO right below the surface.

    Despite all the collusion of cronies, massive globalist policy supports that inflated unit energy costs the one truth emerges again. Socialism fails, it’s only a question of timescales.

  21. These are great fact sheets presented. What’s even more astounding is this has the back drop of a “high carbon cost” regulatory government policy. Where would the results be with a rational deregulated ANWR access, a clean coal investment campaign and more open off shore policies? To name just three major Greenshirt suppression’s of supply. 2-3 million barrels DAILY an easy under production number from the U.S. due to green governance and domination. Did any of this hurt established capital interests? “Big oil” for example? Of course not, they benefited. They got paid more to produce less. The general society endured the pain of high costs and malinvestment. This only an oil example, it’s much larger then this.

    In a lower priced carbon world the bones will be popping out of the skin of the green blob sector pretty fast. Take the massive subsidies away, open supply and it’s a 50X sector bust that happened in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The stupid of the moment though is 50x greater then when the Reagan Reformation began. The Green Blob much more deeply entrenched and the critical thinking skills of the society immeasurably far worse as is reflected in AGW globalism and belief systems.

    Another new high for TSLA last week, $7500 per car fed subside cooked in the 400k next generation backlog, it nets no carbon savings on a standard electric grid charge it might be mentioned, another Ethanol level scam. 60% of the drive-trains fail under 60k miles and they’re massively complicated and expensive to repair. The cars are massively toxic with lead, cobalt and lithium contaminates to name a few. Far worse then solar which is pretty bad in itself.

    The stupid is vast, there is no Reagan leadership logic front and center, a good chunk of the new wealth oligarchs are working the machinery for the Green Blob. The loss of efficiency in the energy sector can be well hidden for some time and in the end most who will die in the high cost energy scam will be politically second/third class global members. Another epic delusion of populist leftist policy that kills the very people the soap box left virtue signals about daily.

    The Green Blob is in fact the modern incorporation of collectivist government evil and delusions. The former Soviet ideal of demagogic poison neatly packaged for children’s consumption in a tin-foil green wrapper. The tell-tale symptoms of anti-Americanism, collectivist wealth redistribution, elitism condescending and administrative authority over markets in the usual know-it-all MO right below the surface.

    Despite all the collusion of cronies, massive globalist policy supports that inflated unit energy costs the one truth emerges again. Socialism fails, it’s only a question of timescales.

  22. Those trillions are why any who resist the demands of the climate consensus are vilified and attacked. Is there a way to put a dollar price on the opportunity cost of the mind boggling theft of resources this money represents? Let’s put faces on the suffering that these climate charlatans are causing.

    • Hunter,

      The hatred of America and collectivist belief systems transcend crony financial interests in themselves.

      The same misunderstanding of Islamic extremism as third world material resentment is common as well. That too is broader, deeper and more complex then the effected targets care to consider. It’s no different with globalist collectivism and carbon totalitarian designs dressed as being “green”.

      The central planning energy production failure isn’t surprising but if the underlying ideology preserves itself the worlds poor in particular remain primary victims. If it’s populist to hate old energy and love green fairytales in a society of rapidly declining critical thinking skills the simple statistical results aren’t going to change the trend line.

      There are a few cracks appearing in the orthodox “Party of science” left, at least among some their deeper thinkers;

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/camille-paglia-on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror/article/2008464#!

      The x vs Y chromosome fact sheet is an even bigger pseudoscience challenge even among comrades. That pig isn’t going to fly. Many on the left know the AGW farce for what it is, another logic burden and they carry scores of them as a prerequisite for party membership.

  23. High Octane Paine,

    As the millennials would say, I am feeling you-really! I am 5 days post op knee
    replacement surgery and your name cracked me up.

    Will get back to you as I can.

    Jerry

Comments are closed.