Green heads will explode: White House seeks 72 percent cut to clean energy research

From the Washington Post

The Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for deep budget cuts to the Energy Department’s renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, slashing them by 72 percent overall in fiscal 2019, according to draft budget documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Many of the sharp cuts would probably be restored by Congress, but President Trump’s budget, due out in February, will mark a starting point for negotiations and offer a statement of intent and policy priorities.

The document underscores the administration’s continued focus on the exploitation of fossil fuel resources — or, as Trump put it in his State of the Union address, “beautiful clean coal” — over newer renewable technologies seen as a central solution to the problem of climate change.

The Energy Department had asked the White House for more modest spending reductions to the renewable and efficiency programs, but people familiar with the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share unfinished budget information, said the Office of Management and Budget had insisted on the deeper cuts.

One person familiar with the negotiating process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe what the person had learned, said that the budget request had been lowered after negotiations with the Office of Management and Budget, and may have been lowered further because of a desire to channel more funding toward nuclear energy, a favored subject for Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

DOE spokesperson Hynes defended the department’s record, saying that last year it “awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to solar and wind energy.”

But the funding requests for next year represent a double whammy for renewable energy after the administration last week imposed tariffs on imported solar panels.

More here

Advertisements

241 thoughts on “Green heads will explode: White House seeks 72 percent cut to clean energy research

  1. “One person familiar with the negotiating process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity…” Smells like manufactured news.

    • markl,

      “Smells like manufactured news.”

      ==========

      Then no reason for the greens to have any concern to cry, protest or riot. Their heads should be just fine. We’ll see.

      • Not necessarily so. The news may have been manufactured expressly to arouse a knee-jerk reaction from the greenies.
        Maybe to test their sensitivity to being poked?

      • Manure-factoried. Well well, these days all news are manure, some just more than others. Just remember there’s no news in Pravda, nor truth in Izvestiya. And remember that Russia Today is the creepiest of them all. They don’t only lie, they sometimes tell the truth to mislead you.

      • Hugs, clever! Initially I thought you had the meanings of Izvestiya and Pravda mixed up, but you were counterpunching!

      • Hugs, I trust RT further than CNN and the rest of MSM. They are biased but fairly transparently so. Mostly, it’s not Fake News.

      • Greg,

        Don’t be fooled by the rt.com. They are the mouth of Russia, so be aware they really take care what facts are useful and what work against them. It is just a new TASS, but this time many Western conservatives are fooled by them.

        Note that Russia probably works in the Internet blackpainting ABC BBC CBC and the other usual suspects /in favour of RT/.

    • I learned as a child that good civil servants don’t speak to the press. Journalists learn that if they do want information from civil servants, they should keep the names secret.

      It was a real bad day when my uncle spoke to a reporter and the reporter broke her word and disclosed his name. Mind you, if he’d been working for private industry he would have been fired on the spot not just hauled up on the carpet.

    • From the “ Land of the Big Dig” comes this (last night).

      Methinks someone has been watching smoke move through the tube of a bong pipe.

    • Yea, “leaked” by some greenie to crank up the base for the midterm elections. Remember that just passed a two year budget! So it will not be until after the midterms that the budget/ deficit game will again be afoot.

  2. If the research for “clean energy” is anything other than nuclear and/or fluidized-bed coal, it’s largely a waste.

    • “Fluidized-bed coal”, long time no see, would you care to explain us what it is all about, and provide us with some example? We have been hearing about “clean coal” for decades, have not seen anything.

      • Fluidized bed combustion was developed in the early ’80s and commercialized partly through DOE’s Clean Coal Technology Programs. The process simplifies pollution control by keeping the combustion temperature relatively low preventing the formation of NOx, and removing SOx in the combustion process by introducing a sorbent which reacts with the sulfur and collects it with the ash. Byproducts of the ash include gypsum for production of wall board, and other compounds used in the manufacture of concrete and similar composite materials. Many fluidized bed plants were built in the ’80s and ’90s, and a few in the ’00s. The relative simplicity of the process without the need to pulverize the coal or other solid fuel, and the ability to collect the pollutants with a simple bag filter or electrostatic precipitator make fluidized bed power plants economical and relatively easy to operate cleanly on a wide variety of fuels. A well designed and operated coal fired fuidized bed plant can operate for a year or more, continuously producing electricity to meet demand, between maintenance outages that last a week or two.

      • Thanks BigWave — your description is excellent. There’s a 200 MW FB coal plant near me running for 10 yrs — has performed very well. No matter how good it works tho, the fabricated problem now is that coal produces CO2! Plant food! And of course those who invented that problem just want to destroy coal — period. And they’ve pretty much done it, despite a developed, “clean” technology that works.

      • Back in the ‘80s you could buy fluid bed grates for your home. Just a small fan to blow air through the sand-bed. They did look rather good, but seem to have gone out of fashion.

        R

    • Solar and wind power have jumped the shark. Both are technologies over 100 years old. There is a reason that their uses are limited. We have maxed out on storage capacity. That’s it people, until we start using nuclear on a small scale.

  3. The title of this article needs corrected capitalizing and also an edit, i.e., “clean energy” should read:

    Clean Energy

    To not include the ” ” is to affirm the junk science assertion of the solar/wind, etc. profiteers.

    Solar, wind, etc. are not, per their own pseudo-CO2 science definition of the term, “clean.”

    (And neither are they, per bona fide science, “dirty” — CO2 is plant food.)

    • Wind (onshore) has a lower levellized cost of energy than coal, although I bet coal in certain locations would be competitive. Natural gas is the star of the show. (Guess who has royalty interests in gas wells).

      • And the “Wind (onshore) is so useful for essential(or any) loads when the wind does not blow.
        Or is overblown.
        These “levellized cost of energy” are idiocy.
        One is whimsical power the other(coal) is 99% guaranteed.
        Why would an intelligent contributor fall for such miss information?

      • Wind (onshore) has a lower levellized cost of energy than coal, although I bet coal in certain locations would be competitive. Natural gas is the star of the show. (Guess who has royalty interests in gas wells).

        Er no, that is a lie.

        If you do the levelling properly, and dont tax carbon, its about twice as expensive. Add in dispatchable backup/storage so it actually works properly and you can add another 50% on top of that.

        Of course if you represent a wind company, you will have no problem in operating in direct competition with coal with no subsidies, wont you?

        No, I thought not…

      • You are incorrect,because the EIA estimates contain several egregious cheats. We unpeeled that onion a ways back over at Climate Etc. In guest post True Cost of Wind. Please read it as an eye opening expose of pure Obama era propaganda. Correctly calculated, CCGT LCOE is ~$56/MWh, coal is ~$60,and wind (based in part on the Texas ERCOT grid at about 10% wind penetration is ~$146.

      • Wind (onshore) has a lower levellized cost of energy than coal,
        ========
        if that was true wind power should compete in the wholesale market along with all other power companies.

        instead wind and solar are provided guaranteed pricing regardless of supply and demand which is destabilizing the grid.

        allowed to continue this will destroy the electrical grid. all that is required to correct this is to insist ALL energy producers compete on a level field.

        wind and solar would quickly be shown to be worthless because the wholesale price goes to near zero when wind and solar are plentiful.

      • Wind may have a lower levelized cost than coal, but it is still more expensive to use wind than coal. Much more. Here is why.

        To arrive at levelized cost you add up all the electricity a plant generates over its life. Then you take the costs over the years and get their NPV. You then divide and get costs per unit of power.

        The hidden assumption is wind and coal are delivering to the same spec, so all you have to consider is the total generated over the life of the installation.

        In real life this is not true, because wind delivers intermittently, irregular and uncontrollable variations in power delivered, and with prolonged unscheduled outages.

        Therefore to have comparable product you have to add in whatever it takes to make wind power continuous and predictable. This can be storage, or backup gas, whatever. This is never included when people say things like, the levelized cost of coal is lower than that of wind.

        When you do this, it turns out that the total installation is far more expensive than a fossil fuel installation. In fact, it turns out you would do better to just forget the wind, and install only the fossil fuel backu plants you need.

        If you don’t include all the costs it takes to make the systems comparable its like apples and oranges.

        Levelized costs, and using them to compare two systems which deliver completely different things as if they were the same, is an intellectual scam.

      • Only if you cost the WT in isolation and ignore:
        1. the massive costs of necessary over-capacity needed within the overall Power Generation system in the form of dedicated standby base load gas turbines or similar to maintain adequate power supplies during the frequent no/low wind conditions. Such gas turbines operating way off peak capacity and grossly inefficiently and thus expensively and would provide 0-100% of the WT’s rated output, and on average 70-75%.
        2. the massive costs of necessary extended and enhanced Power Transmission system as needed to link power from remote Wind Turbines to the areas of actual power demand.
        3. Subsidies paid to WT and stand by GT operators – the latter needed to make their inefficiently operated works commercially viable.

      • Levelized cost of energy is nonsense. Wind needs an equal amount of gas plant built and run for becalmed days. So the levelized cost of wind should include the capital and running costs of gas too. That’s left out of official levelized wind calculations.

    • Quite right, Janice. The term “clean energy” is a marketing term, largely employed by the you-know-whos, to avoid a sensible quantitative analysis of their claims, and promote its apparent vitue in the wider media.
      In that respect it has been very successful.

      • Thanks for the affirmation, Michael H.. And WUWT CONTINUALLY keeps joining right in with that promotion by article titles such as that above (since around 2015, almost non-stop). Sigh.

      • In the UK we have both terms “clean energy” and “green energy” to mean “renewable energy” and to exclude nuclear energy. Most people are fooled – but most people are fools.

    • Hello Janice, noted. However, since I’m referencing a Washington post article/title I copied it verbatim.

      I think perhaps you are perhaps imagining intent I don’t have.

      • Anthony: You could easily have written to make it clear that you were quoting the title as well as the article. You did not. You are a clever man. Thus, I assumed you wrote in a way to create the IMPRESSION that you advocated the term “clean energy” intentionally.

        That you have not (not even here) in any way retracted or qualified the clear impression you created is a clear indication that you intended to support the “clean energy” lie.

        Your actions are what prove your intent (along with the logical conclusion that comes from
        assuming that you are not a mere bumbler).

        Per Evan Jones (in a snide remark about my chagrin over WUWT turning into a “lukewarm swamp”), the overriding intent may be, apparently, largely to make “WUWT self-supporting.” I.e., attract clicks. This has demonstrably taken precedence over promoting the facts about human CO2.

        Whatever your motive is (make a big “splash” for WUWT/Anthony Watts and/or make $ via advertising due to more hits to WUWT or whatever) I am NOT assuming.

        What your intent is NOT is proven by your own persistent, consistently done, actions. It is not (since around 2015 — and I am not the only commenter who has noticed) to get the facts about human CO2 out there. That you still DO get some facts out there is only INCIDENTAL to whatever your main purpose is.

        I am not imagining anything. I am merely drawing logical conclusions based on what you write and your level of intelligence.

        You did NOT make it at all clear that you were quoting that title. And this type of ambiguous, apparently supporting junk CO2 science writing, is a REGULAR pattern and practice of yours. Thus, I attribute it to a general “don’t care” attitude about getting the facts out there. What your underlying motive is I, again, am not assuming.

        Careless and imprecise language is no accident.

        It is a conscious attempt to confuse and deceive.

        Sure, as one of your fanboys pointed out, Janice Moore is only one of thousands around here. I guess that’s why you keep ignoring the substance of what I say and keep right on going with the Lukewarm Swamp policy.

        I’m not, nevertheless, the only WUWTer who has noticed what you are doing and who has expressed dismay about it.

        And from your actions, you could not care less.

        Great!

        It is your site.

        It USED to be God’s site (in my opinion — given how it came to be and given several amazing things that happened, e.g., climategate). It used to be mainly about FACTS and TRUTH.

        Not anymore.

      • Janice,

        Why are you so threatened or angry or whatever if any hint of support for views unlike yours creeps into the site, even unintentionally? It is not your place to decide how things are edited or what is posted. Anthony has no obligation to justify his actions to you. Besides, it’s implied from the “green heads will explode” part that he doesn’t advocate funding for renewables.

        Perhaps it would clarify things and be nicely transparent if the title were something like, “WaPo: ‘White House seeks 72 percent cut to clean energy research’.” But part of the intention is to vilify “greens,” so that alone wouldn’t cut the mustard.

      • @ Kristi Silber – February 10, 2018 at 9:45 pm

        Janice,

        Why are you so threatened or angry or whatever if any hint of support for views unlike yours creeps into the site,

        Kristi, me thinks you were talking Politically Correct science or Political Science in your above comments concerning Janice’s critique of the evolving changes to the “original mission” of WUWT website, forum, blog or whatever it is referred to as being.

        And Kristi, your comment of …… “support for views unlike yours” …. specifically implies or infers that you are a misnurtured/miseducated believer in/of a “consensus of opinions” for determining what is “actual factual science”. Sorry for you …… if so.

        Anyway, I believe that I can speak for Janice by stating that, …… I am not the least bit threatened by what is published or posted on WUWT, ……. and I do get pretty damn angry whenever the content/context of the aforesaid published or posted commentary threatens the education of the populace in/of the actual/factual science of the natural world,

        Especially when the “junk science” or misinformation is re-posted by the same author after they were informed about their mistaken, disingenuous, illogical and/or impossible claim(s)/comment(s).

        Cheers

      • “It USED to be God’s site (in my opinion — given how it came to be and given several amazing things that happened, e.g., climategate). It used to be mainly about FACTS and TRUTH.

        Not anymore.”

        Hmm…that’s quite the charge. I read the article title and was sufficiently convinced it fit WUWT.

        “Anthony: You could easily have written to make it clear that you were quoting the title as well as the article. You did not. You are a clever man. Thus, I assumed you wrote in a way to create the IMPRESSION that you advocated the term “clean energy” intentionally.”

        I, on the other hand, didn’t make that assumption at all. Where did I go wrong?

    • Janice, I like what you typically write and also typically agree with you, but I didn’t get what you are intimating at all. With respect, I saw the emphasis on “green heads explode” and took “clean energy” for the euphemism it is. I hardly think we need constant reaffirmation of the same topics, and if anyone were to understand it differently, one of the regular posters would surely jump in right away. Again, just respectfully disagreeing with you. While I have not posted I have been a regular reader of this site for years now, every single article. Wishing you all the best, Jack

  4. More like:

    … last year it “awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to solar and wind energy”dump money down a rat hole.

  5. This cut is WAY too much – it should be around 71%
    Much like this ethereal 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8 or whatever degree lowering of average planetary temperature is required to shut-up these doomsday-warmers

  6. The money is all wasted. And, we are borrowing the money to line the pockets of junk science proponents and those in bed with politicians—again—to line their own pockets with our money.

  7. STUPID QUESTION: Who exactly does “clean energy research”? Who exactly gets those research funds?
    Private companies? Universities? A combination? Whoever writes a grant? I really don’t know. Thanks for answers — I’ll be lazy and not look it up, relying on (i.e, parasitizing?) the fertile minds of those here to answer.

    • If it’s anything like “green jobs”, it’s completely crazy what counts. “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), green jobs are either 1) those in businesses that produce goods or provide services that conserve natural resources or benefit the environment or 2) those in which employees’ duties include making the employer’s production processes more environmentally friendly or consume fewer natural resources”
      This includes nurses, dishwashers, hair stylists, teachers, etc, etc. I have seen garbage collection listed as a “green job”. It’s all about the labeling. Any job, other than oilfield maybe, can be a “green job” if you word it correctly. My guess is “clean energy research” is just as nebulous. Word the grant request properly, viola, “clean energy research”.

      • “It’s all about the labeling.”

        I suspect there is a “contribution” component as well . . ; )

      • My wife founded and is still a part owner of a company that sells baler wire and strapping to garbage companies to use in their recycling operations. You can’t get any greener than that.

  8. I don’t know if that’s such a good thing; someone really should look into the environmental effects of all that green goo everywhere.

    • Private sector research on fracking was cut in the early 80s. It was federal government research dollars that kept the efforts going.

      • Nonsense. Fracking research by Haliburton as a service company and a several oil companies, EOG Resources in particular (what’s left of the infamous Enron) developed the techniques right up to 2015 (at which time I wrote a multi client book on the frac industry as a subcontractor).

        Fracking didn’t really show its paradigm shifting potential until about 2005. The development without which fracking would never have been commercial was horizontal drilling with a mud motor right at the bit instead of having to twist the entire drill stem from the surface. This allowed the hole to stay in the oil formation laterallyup to 10,000 feet. instead of being restricted to only the vertcal thickness of the formation accessible to production.

        The first horizontal well was drilled at Texon, Texas in 1980 and refinements and new tech continued development by industry virtually to the present. By 2012, there were 50,000 wells drilled, fracked and produced that could with EOG’s and Haliburton’s improvements be reentered, refracked and brought back into production. Government research had basically been looking at extraction of the shale and retorting it by heating – a no go process from the get go!

      • “Wrong. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute acknowledges the key role that federal research played in the early days of fracking (1960s through1980s in particular).”

        I read the article in question. Seems extremely lacking in source material to back up its claims. It appeared to me to be more of an opinion piece than a well sourced research article. And it wasn’t even from AEI.

        Note the authors who wrote the opinion:

        “Michael Shellenberger is president of the Breakthrough Institute, and Ted Nordhaus is chairman of the think tank.” (emphasis mine)

        I checked out the Breakthrough Institute’s website. Here’s it’s mission statement:

        “We are progressives who believe in the potential of human development, technology, and evolution to improve human lives and create a beautiful world.”

        https://thebreakthrough.org/about/mission/

        Ah…”[w]e are progressives”…no wonder the article at AEI isn’t well sourced, in fact, not sourced at all?

        And further:

        “We are the authors of reassessments of progressive assumptions, from “The Death of Environmentalism,” which argued for transcending a nature-based politics to Where Good Technologies Come From, which demonstrates the critical role government has played in the development of technologies from the railroad to the iPhone.” (Emphasis mine).

        Not sure how progressive assumptions are reassessed by demonstrating the “critical role government has played” in technology? In fact, rather than reassessing, it would appear modern progressive assumptions presuppose the centralized role of government in every facet of life.

      • sy computing, I haven’t read the article in question, but I’ve debated people like the authors for years. They start with the assumption that if government is 1% involved in a project, then government deserves 100% of the credit.
        They’ll even go so far as to proclaim that since government could have killed the project, but didn’t, then government gets the credit for anything that results from the project.
        They are progressives after all, trained to assume that all good things flow from government.

      • Another post from MarkW with zero supporting links. That makes, what – roughly 20,000 posts without any links provided? Nowhere in my post did I say that the government deserves 100% credit for their role in fracking becoming viable. But they played a critical role at a time when the private sector had killed all their investment. A quote from Dan Steward, the former VP of Development at Mitchell Energy, a pioneer in fracking: “[The Department of Energy] did a hell of a lot of work, and I can’t give them enough credit for that. DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot diminish the DOE’s involvement.”

      • “…DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it.”

        But in your original argument you said, “It was federal government research dollars that kept the efforts going.”

        Now you seem to be quoting Dan Steward as saying “DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it.”

        Which is it Chris? Did DOE keep “the efforts going” or did “other people”?

        It can’t be both at the same time, or else don’t you contradict yourself?

        If not, why not?

      • sy said: “Which is it Chris? Did DOE keep “the efforts going” or did “other people”?

        It can’t be both at the same time, or else don’t you contradict yourself?

        If not, why not?”

        The very first “fracking” attempt was in the 1860s, when a Civil War veteran named Edward Roberts used a very crude version to expand oil output. While it worked, the eventual discovery of large fields made it not cost effective. Hydraulic fracturing was invented in 1949, but was not scaled up to large scale production due to cost reasons. In the 70s, after the oil embargo, federal funding for fracking research was increased dramatically. In the early 80s, when oil hit $10/bbl, oil companies reduced their research budgets dramatically, but the federal government kept fracking research funding going. The federal government played a key role in the development of computers, the Internet, nuclear power, lasers, and many other areas. I don’t know why this is so controversial – except that WUWT commenters don’t like to see solar and wind get subsidies.

      • Chris – February 12, 2018 at 12:27 am

        The federal government played a key role in the development of computers, the Internet, nuclear power, lasers, and many other areas.

        Liberals, lefties, socialists and most government “troughfeeders” love to re-write or mimic re-writes of recent histories in order to justify their “parasitic” survival status.

        During the past 30 years, 90+% of all Research and Development Funding in the US of A, ….. consisting of hundreds of billions of dollars, …… is apparently another a key role that has been provided by Federal Government Grants and/or Congressional “allocations”, ……. so tell us, Chris, ……. what are the wonderful products, similar to what you mentioned above, that all of that grant and allocation money has produced?

      • “The federal government played a key role in the development of computers, the Internet, nuclear power, lasers, and many other areas. I don’t know why this is so controversial – except that WUWT commenters don’t like to see solar and wind get subsidies.”

        I’m an equal opportunity denier. I would’ve denied the government the funds to do the fracking research as well. I prefer to deny the federal government funds to play a key role in anything except that which the founders allowed for it do.

        Let’s assume all you’ve said is true about that in which the federal government has “played a key role”. No doubt, btw, that individuals like Dan Steward love for the feds to spend the public’s money on that which they (i.e., the Steward’s of the world) SHOULD be spending it upon themselves.

        Nothing like spending everyone elses money to make your business prosper right?

        Developing computer systems can make government more efficient, therefore, theoretically spending less of my money on stupid or inefficient things. They can give us a leg up on our enemies, thereby fulfilling a national security interest. Furthermore, once the technology trickled down to the public, computers and computing have revolutionized how humans do what we do. Computer systems are worthwhile to everyone.

        Designing a private network for secure communications between government entities fulfills a national security role. I’m all for that. Once the technology trickled down to private interests, well see the above. The internet is worthwhile to everyone.

        Nuclear technology stopped a world war in its tracks. It was worthwhile to everyone for this reason alone. Once the technology was allowed to trickle down to the private sector, it was worthwhile to everyone for their energy needs.

        Laser technology can kill people and break things faster…I’m all for having the best of the best of this sort of stuff in case we need it. Once the technology trickled down to the general public, lasers have been utilized to do all sorts of wonderful things for the general public. It was worthwhile to everyone.

        Fossil fuels are worthwhile energy sources practically right out of the ground. It doesn’t really take a whole lot to clean them up and get them ready for production use. Gasoline, diesel, etc., is explosive in and of itself, we don’t need to run it through a series of electronics in order to beef up it’s potential as an energy source like we do the sun. Gasoline already has lots of intrinsic energy available just by its nature alone.

        Energy is a national security interest, e.g., having our own supply of oil versus purchasing it from overseas countries who may or may not be friendly to the cause of the United States at some point in the future. Therefore, even though I would deny the federal government the funds to research fracking (because private interests WILL do it when it becomes commercially viable for them to do so), I can hold my nose and allow a national security interest to justify researching how to pull a TRIED AND TRUE source of energy out of the ground better, more efficiently, and/or in order to get at it where we couldn’t before. Note I said, “TRIED AND TRUE”…we have centuries of data proving the worth of fossil fuels for mankind.

        All of the above served or serves a provable national security interest to the people of the United States.

        What provable national security interest is served by propping up companies like Solyndra? Don’t say to address AGW, because I deny AGW is a problem and neither you nor anyone else in your camp can prove it is. The best you’re able to offer is an argument that fails on a fallacy, i.e., Begging the Question.

        Without AGW as a presupposition to your argument, what’s the worth of wind and solar power?

      • Chris you’d be surprised if I told you that fracking was invented by a Civil War vet who used gun powder to fracture water wells to enhance production. This gave over into the petroleum development when the industry began. They called the technique torpedoing a well to fracture the formation (used nitroglycerine). The practice continued for a hundred years ending in~ 1970. Fracking using hydraulic pressure was first done on the Hugoton gasfield in Kansas. in the 1960s by contractor Haliburton for a company that became BP. Chris your literature is fake. I reiterate that fracking a formation is easy but not much use before horizontal drilling (first tried in 1980, long after any stuff you allude to real or not) made it economic. Even these together took another 25 yrs before it took off. By the way, this specialty book sold for £10,000 a copy by my client so it wasn’t fake news!

      • Samuel C Cogar, I already mentioned some of them, is your comprehension that poor? Nuclear power, the internet (via DARPA), GPS, the semiconductor industry, the computer industry. For example, in the computer industry: “Early mainframe computers were given a significant boost from federally funded computing systems of the 1950s, such as the U.S. Air Force’s Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) project. Although a command-and-control system designed to warn of attacks by Soviet bombers, SAGE pioneered developments in real-time digital computing and core memory (among other advances) that rapidly spread throughout the fledgling computer industry. Time-shared minicomputers, which dominated the market in the 1970s and early 1980s, exploited time-sharing research conducted in the 1960s under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s)1 Project MAC and earlier work sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the Compatible Time-Sharing System at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (see Chapter 4).”

        You provided zero refutation of my point. Trotting out tired phrases like trough feeders does not a case make.

      • sy, you call yourself an equal opportunity denier. Fine, then watch your country (I don’t know if it’s the US or elsewhere) fall behind. Other countries invest in research, and are increasing their investment. Gee, should I listen to you, or should I listen to Bill Gates, who helped create a $1T plus IT industry and who says government research is critical to US leadership in information technology?

      • Chris:

        “sy, you call yourself an equal opportunity denier. Fine, then watch your country (I don’t know if it’s the US or elsewhere) fall behind. Other countries invest in research, and are increasing their investment.”

        Other countries do lots of stupid things, Chris. Fall behind in what? A currently useless technology that does no one (especially the poor) any good other than to raise the price they pay for energy and destroy the beautiful landscape of the United States?

        Your argument here seems to fall prey to the False Dilemma logical fallacy. There’s another alternative other than falling behind, e.g., maintaining our leadership with already proved nuclear energy technologies that exponentially outperform solar/wind at a much lower cost both to the environment (e.g., in terms of sheer scale of production facilites) to the poor among us. While you and yours waste trillions on a technology designed solely (at the moment) to address a planetary non-problem, the poor among you suffer. Think how that money could’ve been better spent.

        “Gee, should I listen to you, or should I listen to Bill Gates, who helped create a $1T plus IT industry and who says government research is critical to US leadership in information technology?”

        You destroy your own argument here as well, by an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Moreover, I already granted that government research into the IT sector gives us an edge in national security over other countries.

        I asked you about the benefit of solar and wind power without the first presupposition of AGW. You haven’t an answer. Perhaps you should reflect upon that. Is your belief system driving your logic rather than the reverse as it should be?

      • Gary, I wouldn’t be surprised about the Civil War vet because I said the exact same thing in my post. Perhaps read all the comments before posting yours?
        We can agree to disagree, I’ve quoted from people in the fracking industry who say that govt support was critical. If you don’t agree, that’s fine.

      • Chris – February 13, 2018 at 12:24 am

        Samuel C Cogar, I already mentioned some of them, is your comprehension that poor? Nuclear power, the internet (via DARPA), GPS, the semiconductor industry, the computer industry. For example, in the computer industry: “Early mainframe computers were given a significant boost from federally funded computing systems of the 1950s, such as the U.S. Air Force’s Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) project. Although ….. YADA, YADA, YADA …..

        Chris, I am damn sure that you are simply MIMICKING things that you are reading from out of a book or garbage off of an internet site …… and adlibbing your beliefs along with it.

        Chris, I am an old “computer designing” dinosaur that was first hired by the UNIVAC Corporation in 1963, and proof of my tenure there can be verified by “clicking” this url link, to wit:

        http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3449735.pdf

        And it was during my tenure there that semiconductor ICs became commercially available.

        And here is a bio of that “1950s mainframe computer” that you claim you know so much about, to wit:

        The UNIVAC I (Universal Automatic Computer I) was the first commercial computer produced in the United States. It was designed principally by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, the inventors of the ENIAC. Design work was started by their company, Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation (EMCC), and was completed after the company had been acquired by Remington Rand (which later became part of Sperry, [UNIVAC division] now Unisys). In the years before successor models of the UNIVAC I appeared, the machine was simply known as “the UNIVAC”.

        The first Univac was accepted by the United States Census Bureau on March 31, 1951, and was dedicated on June 14 that year.[3][4]

        Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I

        And ps, Chris, it t’was in 1958 or 59 when I was working a “summer job” at UNIVAC in north Philly that my older brother introduced me to J. Presper Eckert (they were in the process of designing the UNIVAC II),

        And “YES”, as you can see by this hyper link, ….. my older brother was a really great designer of computers.

        Cheers

      • Chris – February 13, 2018 at 12:26 am

        Gee, should I listen to you, or should I listen to Bill Gates, who helped create a $1T plus IT industry and …………

        SHUR NUFF, …… Chris, ….. Bill Gates et el did wonderful things ……. but only after IBM gave him the “rights” to their PC DOS (Disk Operating System) software and loader ROM firmware. [At the time, IBM didn’t foresee any future in producing PCs]

      • Wrong Cougar. Gates created MS-DOS after purchasing 86-DOS from Tim Patterson. It then licensed MS-DOS to IBM. IBM-PC DOS is just a re-branded version of MS-DOS. IBM did not give “rights” to Gates.

      • Samuel C Cogar,

        Your refutation of my post consisted of nothing more than patting yourself (and your brother) on the backs for your IT careers. Good for you, but so what? I said the federal government played a key role in the IT industry, and you did nothing to disprove that. Maybe you see everything as black and white, no room for gray. Either the federal government did everything, or they made no contribution. That, of course, is a completely idiotic way to view things, but to each his own.

      • And as David noted, you completely mischaracterized the IBM-Microsoft relationship. I know a little about it as I worked for IBM for 17 years, including 5 years covering the Microsoft account. IBM got worried at the success Apple was having in PCs, and so wanted to rush a product to market. They initially went to Microsoft, who was known for their tools. Gates told IBM “we don’t make OSes, go see CPM.” So IBM did, but CPM rejected their overtures. IBM went back to MS, and asked again if MS could help them. Gates was smart enough to see a huge opportunity, and so asked for 2 weeks to discuss it with his dev team. Of course they had nothing internally, so Gates looked around, and found Tim Paterson, who had developed 86-DOS about 10 miles away in Tukwila. Tim had not had much luck in selling his OS against the incumbent CP/M, so accepted Gates’ offer of 50K to buy the rights. And that’s how it happened, not how you said.

        Oh, and “At the time, IBM didn’t foresee any future in producing PCs” is total nonsense. IBM brought a product to market quickly BECAUSE they wanted a future in producing PCs. They just didn’t have the foresight to get exclusive rights, if not for DOS for the underlying BIOS. A huge, colossal mistake. But nothing to do with them not foreseeing a future in producing PCs.

      • Sy, separate from AGW, pollution is still a big issue. So is distribution of power. Tell me, how do the 100s of millions of Africans who live rural areas scattered across Africa, which is bigger in size than China+India+Europe+the continental US, get power? Coal fired plants plus big distribution networks? That’s not cost effective given the huge area.
        We also have less than 200 years of fossil fuels available. It takes decades to move from that to renewable – no matter which renewable you choose to support. Certainly wind and solar have progressed more quickly due to AGW concerns. So if you think AGW is not a concern, then you probably won’t support subsidies and feed in tariffs. That’s fine, you feel one way about it, I feel a different way.

      • “Sy, separate from AGW, pollution is still a big issue.”

        Where in the U.S. is pollution a big enough issue that the citizenry will trade inexpensive, reliable NPP, NG or clean coal based electricity production for unreliable, outrageously expensive, useless solar and wind that in the first place require the aforementioned already existing technologies for a backup??

        Why would anyone make such an irrational investment for a non-problem?

        “So is distribution of power. Tell me, how do the 100s of millions of Africans who live rural areas scattered across Africa, which is bigger in size than China+India+Europe+the continental US, get power? Coal fired plants plus big distribution networks? That’s not cost effective given the huge area.”

        It would appear Africa has lots of rural areas that aren’t powered:

        http://africagrid.energydata.info/

        How many individuals actually LIVE in these areas I don’t know. Do you? Regardless, I’m not sure how Africa will serve their citizenry. However they do it, it would appear the evidence of other countries’ experience would suggest that solar and wind aren’t the way to go:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/08/australian-east-coast-narrowly-avoids-a-widespread-blackout-thanks-to-coal/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/05/dash-for-gas-green-south-australian-government-throws-in-the-towel-on-renewables/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/30/more-south-australian-grid-instability-no-way-renewable-energy-can-be-blamed/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/05/australian-electrical-system-operator-orders-wind-farms-to-cut-back-production-in-wake-of-blackout/

        While I hope the best for the African people, my concern is right here at home. We have plenty of poor people in the United States to protect from unreliable, high-cost “Green” energy.

        “We also have less than 200 years of fossil fuels available.”

        No Chris. This claim is impossible to support with empirical data. Impossible, Chris. Stop making it. With all due respect, don’t make yourself look like the fool you’re accusing others of in this thread.

        “That’s fine, you feel one way about it, I feel a different way.”

        I make every effort to think my way through the issues of the day, Chris. I avoid the temptation to “feel” my way through them. I would hope everyone would do the same, where possible. Good propositional logic is critical to right belief, or at least to avoiding obviously blatant wrong belief.

        All the best.

      • Sy, you live in the US. I’ve lived in Asia for 20 years, and experienced the pollution first hand. It’s real and has a major impact on quality of life and health, especially in China and India. So all of your first two paragraphs are not relevant for most of Asia and Africa, where pollution is a major issue.
        It’s interesting that all your examples about renewable problems are taken from WUWT. You failed to include examples where coal fired plants have caused problems that solar/wind/batteries fixed, such as this one in Australia: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musks-tesla-battery-south-australia-responded-in-record-time-2017-12.
        One of the main drivers of the use of RE in the US is the demand from US companies. They want renewable energy. They have looked at the science regarding AGW and decided it is real. You can criticize them all you want, but it doesn’t matter. They are moving forward with RE, and that is driving RE projects in the US. I agree in the US it is not pollution concerns that are the primary driver, though pollution from coal plants has major health and mortality implications: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421630322X?via%3Dihub
        Regarding Africa, you say “How many individuals actually LIVE in these areas I don’t know. Do you?” As a matter of fact, I do. Google is your friend, try it some time. Sub Saharan Africa has 854 people, of which 63%, or 538M, live in rural areas. In other words, a population equal to 150% of the entire US population lives in rural areas in Africa. Since you say solar and wind are not the way to go, you have no answer for them. http://global-growing.org/en/content/fact-1-majority-sub-saharan-africans-live-rural-areas-europeans-predominantly-cities
        You then say: “While I hope the best for the African people, my concern is right here at home. We have plenty of poor people in the United States to protect from unreliable, high-cost “Green” energy.” Do you have data links to support that claim? The price of electricity has gone up by an average of 2.6% per year between 2000 and 2016 – essentially the same rate of increase as inflation. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183700/us-average-retail-electricity-price-since-1990/
        Lastly, you say : “I make every effort to think my way through the issues of the day, Chris. I avoid the temptation to “feel” my way through them. I would hope everyone would do the same, where possible. Good propositional logic is critical to right belief, or at least to avoiding obviously blatant wrong belief.” Perhaps “feel” was a poor choice of words. We arrived at different conclusions. I provided a substantial number of links to support my points. For the most part, you did not, except for your WUWT links about solar/wind problems. That’s it. You didn’t prove that US electricity prices are punishingly high. You skirted the Africa issue. You didn’t refute my point about the impact of federal research, you just stated that you don’t believe in it. That is fine, but that does not constitute proof.

      • “Sy, you live in the US. I’ve lived in Asia for 20 years, and experienced the pollution first hand. It’s real and has a major impact on quality of life and health, especially in China and India. So all of your first two paragraphs are not relevant for most of Asia and Africa, where pollution is a major issue.”

        Thank you for confirming my point for me Chris, but it was already made when I said:

        “Where in the U.S. is pollution a big enough issue that the citizenry will trade…”

        “You failed to include examples where coal fired plants have caused problems that solar/wind/batteries fixed, such as this one in Australia: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musks-tesla-battery-south-australia-responded-in-record-time-2017-12.”

        No Chris, this isn’t an example of something RE has “fixed”. It’s a single example of RE coming online as designed during a power failure. I should HOPE it would work given the taxpayers paid for it to work! Power plants might go offline once in a while. It happens. But if RE is “fixing” FF power issues as you say, why is SA building new FF generators?

        From your own source material:

        “South Australian premier Jay Weatherill’s energy plan for the state, released today, will invest $550 million in a range of projects including Australia’s biggest battery storage system, with 100MW capacity, as well as a state-owned 250MW gas-fired generator for emergency backup supply.

        The new 250MW gas-fired generator is expected to cost $360 million and the government has set itself the nearly impossible task of having it ready by next summer.”

        https://www.businessinsider.com.au/south-australia-has-unveiled-a-550-million-energy-plan-that-includes-australias-biggest-battery-storage-and-a-new-gas-fired-power-plant-2017-3

        If RE was “fixing” any problem, why does SA need to build a gas-fired generator to back up the RE solution? The only reason can be because the RE solution is unreliable, in which case, as I’ve argued, RE is not “fixing” anything at all.

        And then there’s the following:

        Australia rejects renewable energy target for cheaper power

        “CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — The Australian government on Tuesday rejected a plan to generate 42 percent of the country’s power from wind and solar energy, in a setback for compliance with climate change commitments.

        The policy change will end subsidies paid to wind and solar generators from 2020, to help reduce costs for consumers” (emphasis mine).

        Notice the bold part, Chris, i.e., to help reduce costs for consumers. Some of those are poor people aren’t they? Why should the poor be forced to pay more for the unproved and currently unprovable non-science of AGW?

        Why should the poor suffer?

        Wind fail: blow me down

        “Buried in this week’s confronting report into Australia’s future electricity security is a key sentence that underscores how the renewable energy target and wind power can be rightly fingered as the root of all chaos.

        The Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed wind generation output during times of peak demand could fall to as low as 2 per cent of installed capacity.

        Even when spread geographically across the entire National Electricity Market, wind power could not be guaranteed to deliver more than 5 per cent of its promise.

        This means the main technology being underpinned by billions of dollars in renewable energy certificates under the RET is likely to go missing in action when it is needed most.

        https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/wind-fail-blow-me-down/news-story/8059f81a834c57e52857214e2314b679

        The “root of all chaos” seems to be at the feet of RE solutions, Chris. Therefore, it would appear that nothing is being “fixed”, except to pull back the irrational and ill-advised RE power plan in Australia and replace it with efficient, inexpensive FF plants. Thank goodness for the poor and businesses alike in SA!

        “One of the main drivers of the use of RE in the US is the demand from US companies. They want renewable energy. They have looked at the science regarding AGW and decided it is real.”

        No Chris, US companies have realized they can use other people’s money to generate power for themselves rather than pay power companies. Hey I’m all for it! If a PRIVATE company wants to install solar panels all over their buildings using non-taxpayer funded resources that’s great! Alas, that’s not always the case. This is a cost/benefit analysis scenario, Chris, not an AGW scenario.

        For example, Wal-Mart:

        How Walmart Became A Green Energy Giant, Using Other People’s Money

        “The roof of the Wal-Mart in Mountain View, Calif. is covered with solar panels. Depending on the time of day they provide 15% of the power needed to run the store. Last year President Barack Obama stopped by here to give a speech about his energy plan. Standing before shelves filled with discount lightbulbs, Obama held up Wal-Mart as an exemplar of corporate responsibility.

        ‘A few years ago you decided to put solar panels on the roof of the store. You replaced some traditional lightbulbs with LEDs. You made refrigerator cases more efficient. And you even put in a charging station for electric vehicles,” said Obama. ” More and more companies like Wal-Mart are realizing that wasting less energy isn’t just good for the planet, it’s good for business. It’s good for the bottom line.’

        And it’s great p.r. for a company that has been lambasted for a range of corporate sins, from low wages and deplorable working conditions to accusations of predatory pricing and monopolistic behavior (naturally they deny these things). But if Wal-Mart’s energy initiative sometimes smells a little like greenwashing, the Bentonville, Ark.-based giant (2014 sales: $480 billion) is far too savvy to lose money on it. Rather, the retailer has off-loaded the capital investment–and all the risk–onto partners, like SolarCity, that minimize their exposure by taking full advantage of the federal government’s generous subsidies for investing in alternative energy.”

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/11/04/walmarts-everyday-renewable-energy/#7acbd0ef4a30

        “Regarding Africa, you say “How many individuals actually LIVE in these areas I don’t know. Do you?” As a matter of fact, I do. Google is your friend, try it some time. Sub Saharan Africa has 854 people, of which 63%, or 538M, live in rural areas. In other words, a population equal to 150% of the entire US population lives in rural areas in Africa. Since you say solar and wind are not the way to go, you have no answer for them.”

        “Google is your friend, try it some time.” As a matter of fact, Google is my friend indeed, as the above research I did on SA from it shows! Thank you for your recommendation!

        “Since you say solar and wind are not the way to go, you have no answer for them.” Well no, Chris. It isn’t my place to answer for the African people. You seem to have gone off-topic a bit. If you re-read my arguments above you should notice that I’ve restricted my criticism of government funded research to the U.S. What Africa does is up to their government. Of course, I would hope that they would avoid the pitfalls of RE given the experience the Australians have had with even the latest RE technologies. After all, SA is rejecting it’s previous RE plan going forward for the sake of consumers and businesses alike. For the sake of the poor.

        “You then say: “While I hope the best for the African people, my concern is right here at home. We have plenty of poor people in the United States to protect from unreliable, high-cost “Green” energy.” Do you have data links to support that claim?”

        That’s right, Chris. Notice I said, “protect from unreliable, high-cost” energy. You’re right, thankfully the AGW hysteria has pretty much been limited by how the U.S. government works. Barack Obama, try as he might (Solyndra), was unable to convince the public that AGW was enough of a problem to force RE down the throats of the American people (unlike, for example, South Australia).

        But let’s look at what he admitted before he ever took office:

        Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama

        “‘If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,’ Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, ‘Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'”

        https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/uttered-in-2008-still-haunting-obama-in-2012-074892

        Thankfully Chris, the poor here in the States have been temporarily protected from the foolishness of the AGW hysteria. Let’s hope rationality continues to prevail!

        I hope you’re happier with my source material Chris. Lot’s more links as you requested.

        All the best!

      • February 13, 2018 at 10:07 am

        And as David noted, you completely mischaracterized the IBM-Microsoft relationship. I know a little about it as I worked for IBM for 17 years, including 5 years covering the Microsoft account. IBM got worried at the success Apple was having in PCs, and so wanted to rush a product to market.

        You are 100% correct, Chris, after all these years my “remembering” taint worth a damn anymore, ….. to wit:

        The birth of the IBM PC

        Drawing on its pioneering SCAMP (Special Computer, APL Machine Portable) prototype of 1973, IBM’s General Systems Division announced the IBM 5100 Portable Computer in September 1975. Weighing approximately 50 pounds, the 5100 desktop computer was comparable to the IBM 1130 in storage capacity and performance but almost as small and easy to use as an IBM Selectric Typewriter. It was followed by similar small computers such as the IBM 5110 and 5120.

        IBM’s own Personal Computer (IBM 5150) was introduced in August 1981, only a year after corporate executives gave the go-ahead to Bill Lowe, the lab director in the company’s Boca Raton, Fla., facilities. He set up a task force that developed the proposal for the first IBM PC. Early studies had concluded that there were not enough applications to justify acceptance on a broad basis and the task force was fighting the idea that things couldn’t be done quickly in IBM

        Read more @ https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

        Microsoft’s IBM partnership

        IBM approached Microsoft in July 1980 in reference to an operating system for its upcoming personal computer, the IBM PC. IBM first proposed that Microsoft write the BASIC interpreter. When IBM’s representatives mentioned that they needed an operating system, Gates referred them to Digital Research (DRI), makers of the widely used CP/M operating system. IBM’s discussions with Digital Research went poorly, and they did not reach a licensing agreement. IBM representative Jack Sams mentioned the licensing difficulties during a subsequent meeting with Gates and told him to get an acceptable operating system. A few weeks later, Gates proposed using 86-DOS (QDOS), an operating system similar to CP/M that Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products (SCP) had made for hardware similar to the PC. Microsoft made a deal with SCP to become the exclusive licensing agent, and later the full owner, of 86-DOS. After adapting the operating system for the PC, Microsoft delivered it to IBM as PC DOS in exchange for a one-time fee of $50,000.

        Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

        Apple Computer, Inc. 1976–84: Founding and incorporation

        By the end of 1970’s, Apple had a staff of computer designers and a production line. The company introduced the Apple III in May 1980 in an attempt to compete with IBM and Microsoft in the business and corporate computing market. Jobs and several Apple employees, including Jef Raskin, visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.

        The Apple II, also invented by Wozniak, was introduced on April 16, 1977, at the first West Coast Computer Faire. It differed from its major rivals, the TRS-80 and Commodore PET, because of its character cell-based color graphics and open architecture.

        Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.

        IBM PC ………………………….. 1975
        Apple II ………………………….. 1977
        PC DOS (pre Microsoft DOS) …… 1981

      • Oh, and “At the time, IBM didn’t foresee any future in producing PCs” is total nonsense. IBM brought a product to market quickly BECAUSE they wanted a future in producing PCs.

        Chris, ……. so you decided it was “total nonsense”, …… HUH?

        Early studies had concluded that there were not enough applications to justify acceptance on a broad basis and the task force was fighting the idea that things couldn’t be done quickly in IBM

        Read more @ https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

    • It is govenment regulations that make nuclear unattractive in the first place. Nuclear is a techonlogical winner, but is made less economic by excessive govenment regulation, which is itself fueled with unbridled alarmism by environmentalists in the lame-stream media.

    • David Dirkse – Had Chernobyl been designed to remain stable, containment wouldn’t have been needed. Not that I’m saying containment is a bad idea. It also provides good protection from outside projectiles.

    • Rob, that’s the result of the out of control lawyers lobby in this country.
      Other countries don’t have the problem with lawyers that we do, and they are able to safely and economically run nuclear power plants.

    • “Without government subsidized insurance, the entire nuclear power industry would shut down. The “free market” will not write a liability policy for a nuclear power plant.”

      After considering the safety record of American NPP’s, I was suspicious of this claim, so I went to the NRC:

      “Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for $450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site (not per reactor). This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $121.255 million per reactor.”

      The second tier insurance is identified as “Industry Self Insurance”, which is by definition private as well.

      And then this:

      “The only insurance pool writing nuclear insurance, American Nuclear Insurers, is comprised of property-casualty insurance companies.”

      https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html

      Rob your claim appears to be demonstrably false.

      If not, what have I missed?

    • The wave killed 20,000, and savaged the lives of millions.

      But what was really bad, was the release of some radiation.

      We recovered the first wind-blown debris (big black floats), and the Japanese Embassy showed up with a Decon Team. IKYN.

      • Coal is recharged at a rate similar to geothermal energy (i.e. very slowly. Too slowly). But, curiously, lots of peole have no problem describing geothermal as “renewable” where coal is not.

        The thermal reservoir of geothermal is theoretically enormous, but largely unavailable, and is renewed very slowly by the decay of naturally-occurring radioactive elements. The irony is strong with this one.

      • ‘It’s a battery that cannot be readily recharged.

        Of course it can. Just provide me the energy to do it, like with any battery.

      • The USA has sufficient solar coal reserves to supply all of our energy needs for 200 years, at a 2018 usage rate! Now that’s solar energy you can rely on….

  9. Considering the impact of both solar fields and wind farms on migrating birds, critters which have a beneficial impact on ecosystems, I’m completely in favor of cutting this nonsense to 100%. If it’s so important, then let private enterprise fund it.

    Why should WE, the taxpaying public have to pay for someone else’s daydreams?

    • Agreed 100% – no more subsidies, no more mandates. Let solar and wind sink or swim on their own merits.

  10. Rather than refer to ‘clean coal’, I suggest we use the term ‘solar coal’ energy. Then demand the same subsidies for solar coal as all other solar energy scams projects.
    “Solar Coal Jobs Are Shovel Ready Jobs!”

    • When my son (now a PhD geology professor) was a little kid he loved the Richard Scarry books. In one of them that showed what people do all day they showed coal being mined. To them, correctly, they referred to coal as “buried sunshine.”

  11. Nuclear power will eventually provide the grid power for the world.
    China will lead the way into the 21st century with PWR-PM’s and Fast Reactors.
    Clinton reduced the US Nuclear research to zilch; we have been on the downhill slope anyway with political corruption being the policy of choice – the future be damned.

    Asia Rising!

  12. Since the “science is settled” and the “consensus is in”, concerning both global warming and “clean” energy, it seems like no money at all needs to be spent on the subject.

    Seems a cut by 100% would be appropriate.

  13. That money is better spent solving real problems.

    Progressives are Out Of Touch on a Biblical Scale; NAACP Should Demand Re-Direction of Climate Change Funding to Inner-Cities
    If you go into a black community and poll the residents, I feel confident that none, not a single resident, would rank preventing climate change as one of their top 10 priorities. The social and economic statics of the black community are horrifying, and yet on MLK day 2018, the NAACP claims that “MLK’s Vision … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/progressives-are-out-of-touch-on-a-biblical-scale-naacp-should-demand-re-direction-of-climate-change-funding/

  14. After all of these “innovative” developments in renewable technology over several decades – what have we actually ended up with?
    Bigger wind turbines, and cheaper solar photovoltaic.
    Two developments which are really just natural advances on existing tech. and would have occurred anyway without subsidies.
    So, what has been the use of the hundreds of billions spent on research?
    And yet I can recall dozens of kooky ideas which claimed that they were going to be the energy of the future. There seem to have been at least one a month, which drew my attention.

  15. The US is the second biggest investor in renewables after China. This move won’t make one iota of difference in terms of commercial motivations to implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes. In some countries renewable prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels and this is gaining momentum around the world. While Donald Trump’s administration moves backwards towards promoting fossil fuels, most other countries are moving forwards.
    Now there is also a future economic cost to this as well. The European Union and countries outside Europe are not going to implement the Paris Climate Agreement and let the US piggy back for free on the back of their efforts. Down the line the US will be made to pay for Trump and Pruit’s miscalculation – which is going to hit the US consumer in his/her pocket.
    https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/03/france-to-trump-no-paris-agreement-no-eu-trade-agreement/

    • ‘ In some countries renewable prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels’

      Cheaper to produce, or more difficult to sell?

      You know, price is negatively correlated with both usefulness and subsidy. I just love your optimism, especially when hydro is ‘not renewable’ but solar panels that come with batteries and life-times, are increasingly sold directly to end-users who – sadly – are not very good investors.

    • “Now there is also a future economic cost to this as well.” Yes, expensive, unreliable “green energy” has a huge economic cost which is already, and certainly will be, disasterous to those foolish enough to implement it. Trump/Pruitt are saving the US economy, and the US consumer can and will take that to the bank.
      Glad we agree.

      • Ivankinsman,

        It is not a lie. Mixed coal/nuclear/hydro electricity is cheaper than wind//solar. Just tell your ‘lie’ to my power supplier. They didn’t get the memo, obviously.

      • Name a single place where lots of renewable power is being used, and electric prices are lower.
        The fact that you can’t is sufficient to put the lie to your claim that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.
        But you will continue to spread your lies, because that is what you are paid to do.

    • ya im finding the same thing all over the world. renewables are winning. unsubsidized.

      its rather stupid for us tp not invest in innovation.

      yes that means fund research into some crazy ideas.

    • The EU is not going to implement much of anything in the Paris accords because they can’t afford to (maybe a US Marshall plan for European clean energy? /sarc).

      The US is reducing CO2 without the accords.

    • Ivan, please realize renewables price is tied to its value to the market at that time. Wind or solar generated during periods of low demand are nearing worthless.

    • Global CO2 contributions to the atmosphere have increased every year, and continue to increase, but the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere hasn’t changed in 60 years. What possible effect to believers in the Paris Climate Agreement expect to see?

      • Let’s clarify this. Mankind’s development has occurred during a period in the planet’s history that has been exceptionally stable (check this for yourself).
        When you pump CO2 into the atmosphere it changes the planetary weather patterns so that you get more extreme droughts and more extreme flooding. Think of a dice in terms of extreme weather events – you throw a six and AGW increases the chances of getting a six.

        You think AGW’s link to extreme weather events is a fiction but countries are already putting measures in place to combat climate change. The city planners are not twiddling their thumbs (like climate sceptics) whilst Rome burns.

      • ivankinsman

        Oh look!

        What a surprise, you cite yet another MSM article (the Guardian no less) as some sort of scientific proof of your argument.

        Stop contaminating your mind, and this forum, with this junk.

      • People began building dams to hold back the sea from Rotterdam over 700 years ago. Today large areas of Rotterdam are well below sea level. Back then, floods killed tens of thousands in the Netherlands which is incredible considering that the population was a small fraction of today’s.

        The ignorance of people like ivankinsman is similarly incredible.

      • ivan, the data shows that global warmings link to extreme weather is fictitious. Bad weather has been decreasing for decades.

      • Ivan, do you think everyone here is hearing these trite high school lies on climate change for the first time?. You are in the company of people who debunked each and every one of your 15 year old “talking” points (largely abandoned by the “consensus” over the years) using data even employed by IPCC.

        The whole global warming worry has, perforce, shifted to what is supposedly going to happen. That their forecasts have without exception all been wrong so far, generally exaggerated by 200% is the reason the problem has been shifted to the vague future 2030, 2050, 2100 – All the earlier predictions have come and gone unfulfilled. Downward spirals, tipping points, destruction of agriculture, the end of snow, 100 months to save the planet. Westside Highway in Manhattan under 10 feet of water by 2000!

        Let me make a prediction you can excoriate me with in a few years if I am wrong. With the El Nino ended, temperature dropping and cold oceans developing (go to Enso page here on WUWT and scroll down to sea surface temperature map), the best bet is a return to the Pause.

    • Ivan… so what does this actually mean… “The European Union and countries outside Europe are not going to implement the Paris Climate Agreement and let the US piggy back for free on the back of their efforts.”

      Seems to me that is a stark admission that the Renewables Energy is vastly more expensive and the EU is NOT go going to let the US get away with using a much cheaper energy source to fuel their economy while the EU trashes theirs with expensive and unreliable Renewable Energy. If Renewables were actually cheaper and more reliable they would be laughing all the way to the bank.

      • This is in terms of environmental costs. The US will be penalised financially. Why should the EU bear the costs if transitioning to clean energy whilst US industry keeps on pumping out CO2. No way, Acheson. The US would be screaming blue murder if this was the other way round – a quite rightly too. Trump likes to whinge about China owing to unfair trade practices. The same applies to his administration in this case.

      • The EU will not transition to ‘clean energy’. Just look the ‘progress’ in Germany. Nor China, which produces about the same emissions per capita, but much larger emissions per GDP and by total.

      • “The US will be penalised financially.”

        Dear me, you’ve really got it bad, haven’t you?

        Who precisely do you think is in a position to penalise the USA?

        Don’t answer the EU, it’s a busted flush, by leaving, Great Britain has dealt it a wound that with any luck will most likely prove mortal

    • So claimith: ivankinsman – February 10, 2018 at 11:37 am

      The US is the second biggest investor in renewables after China. In some countries renewable prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels and this is gaining momentum around the world. While Donald Trump’s administration moves backwards towards promoting fossil fuels, most other countries are moving forwards.

      Ivankinsman,

      I live in north-central West Virginia, USA, at approximately 38° N latitude, ….. and for the past 6 or 7 days (February 5th thru 12th) the skies have been heavily overcast with only a smidgen of Sunshine, …… very little to no wind, …… pretty much constant rainfall with intermixed snowfall …… and the outdoors temperatures ranging between 20°F and 55°F.

      So, Ivankinsman, please tell me why I would be a whole lot happier, warmer and comfortable iffen I was depending on the “green energy” generated by solar panels and/or a wind turbine ……. rather than the “coal burning” fossil fuel electrical generators that have been keeping my arse “warm n’ toast” ever since the outdoor temperature began decreasing in late August?

      Being an old decrepit “fert”, iffen my furnace or my O2 generator ceases to function due to a lack of electricity, …… I’m in big trouble.

      And ps, there are literally millions of individuals like myself, that have a “life verse death” dependence on having a constant, reliable source of electrical energy.

      Thus, avid proponents of/for “green energy”, …… are also avid proponents of/for “forced population control”, ……. to eliminate the poor, the sick and the elderly.

      • Sam – get this straight. No-one is advocating 100% renewables. The higher the proportion in the mix the better, however. Here in freezing Poland more people are installing solar for water heating for example. If renewable prices continue to fall then – on a cost/benefit determination – their uptake should increase. I want to pay the lowest prices on my energy bills just like you.

      • So claimith: ivankinsman

        Here in freezing Poland more people are installing solar for water heating for example.

        Ivan, with Poland residing between 50 and 54 degrees N latitude …… I seriously doubt that there is sufficient daily Solar irradiance during the summer months to be heating very much water for domestic uses. Me thinks it might be more “cost conscious” if one installed a “black” roof on their home and a auxiliary metal water tank in their attic for use ONLY during the summer months. The attic tank would function like a “pre-heater” for the electric/NG/oil “hot water” tank.

  16. Why Democrats Don’t Talk About Climate Change Anymore

    Climate Change was supposed to be the most critical issue facing not only America but the World according to the Democrats. If that is so, and we only have 5 years or less to act, why are the High Priestesses of the Democratic Church of Totalitarian Climate Control so silent? The answer is simple. George Soros has effectively paid the DNC $18 Billion Dollars to fight for Open Borders. That is why all you hear about today are the “Dreamers.” Democrats don’t care about saving the Earth, Socialism will be the destruction of the Earth, not its savior.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/why-democrats-dont-talk-about-climate-change-anymore/

      • Forrest,

        I believe the answer has to do with a conviction that true “rule by consent of the governed” is foolishness to many of the world’s rich and powerful . . who prefer the ancient (and still most prevalent) way; Rule by a few elites, over the deplorable masses ; )

        And I suspect a great many crimes have been committed by our would-be ruling elites, so naturally they are ever more anxious to see the U.S. fail . .

      • Don’t know for sure, but if you are a one world order progressive, that it the utopia they dream of. Everyone is equal, no diversity in cultures, and one ruler. Basically Nazis on steroids. I think this philosophy comes from the belief that Nations and Religions cause all the wars, so if we eliminate them, there will be no wars. Soros himself has lived with some extreme emotional baggage his entire life having aided the Nazis as a child, so I would imagine his self hate has something to do with it. Self hate is almost always the driver behind motivated progressives. They can never achieve what their daddy’s did, so they turn on those like him. Rockefellers are turning on oil, Bill Ayers’ dad was a successful CEO of an energy company, white privilege,…..

      • “I think this philosophy comes from the belief that Nations and Religions cause all the wars, so if we eliminate them, there will be no wars.”

        Nah, it’s bipeds . . Think about it; virtually all wars are fought exclusively by people with two legs. So, if we just alleviate that enabling aspect . .

      • Knight, cut the middle leg away, so that solves it.

        But really it is not that ‘progressives’ want to get rid of culture and religion. No, they want to bottle it and are very concerned when a language in a jungle disappears. They don’t want to let me/us keep my language and religion, but they want ‘them’ to keep it. It is really a mystery to me.

    • Soros, Steyer and the other investment gurus who made their money on financial/fund markets that got bailed out by gov have dropped loads on failed election bids. Steyer has folksy adds on cable on how he is going to bankroll saving America from the Deplorables. Soros is throwing bad money on worse. Boy these wunderkind sure have naive blind spots. The lemmings seem destined into sink into oblivion.

  17. Unfortunately you cannot cut “Clean Energy” research funds enough to balance the $300 billion extra spending in the “budget deal” Trump just signed.

    • The remainder of the deficit is in Obamacare (i.e. monopoly or single-payer solutions), inequitable trade, liberal fiscal leverage, and excessive immigration (e.g. selective-child replacement, democratic gerrymandering, clean wars).

      • inequitable trade is primarily due to the excessive burdens our government puts on American manufacturers.
        Get government under control, and for the most part, it disappears.

      • there is not one single reason for why manufacturing money tricked down on china.
        it’s because they give the best bang for the buck
        that’s meritocracy.
        america is no longer a manufacturing economy and hasn’t been for a while
        it became a ‘service’ economy which is a negative sum game, until it evolved to the present day ‘activist economy’ which is exponentially negative and must collapse spectacularly.
        blame is pointless. the only thing that can change it is being better than the competition.
        the generation that has taken over is not and the ones who succeed them are unimaginably incompetent.
        so there will be such a song of blame and such a howl for punishment.
        when the frequency of the words ‘greed’ ‘hoarding’ and ‘selfish’ appear common in the public forum, watch out!

      • gnomish – February 11, 2018 at 7:07 pm

        america is no longer a manufacturing economy and hasn’t been for a while
        it became a ‘service’ economy which is a negative sum game, until it evolved to the present day ‘activist economy’ which is exponentially negative and must collapse spectacularly.

        Right you are, gnomish, right you are.

        The “non-producing” public employee ranks have increased exponentially during the past 30+ years and their demands for extremely high salaries, fantastic entitlements (healthcare, sick leave, etc.), job security (tenure), early retirement and very little to no “job performance” requirements ……. have been extremely costly for the “tax-paying” private employees, but mostly for the “tax paying” privately owned manufacturing businesses and corporations.

        So extremely costly that the aforenoted businesses and corporations have simply closed their doors and are no longer paying taxes.

    • This is a consequence of the RINOs not supporting better bills, making it necessary to deal with the Dems to get a worse one. At least the tax cuts will result in higher revenues, a resource that the Dems didnt have so they borrowed from China instead.

  18. A progressive (i.e. monotonic) solution to the artificial green blight, That said, I would still consider nonrenewable, gray converters of renewable, green solar and wind drivers as merited in context.

  19. Some group has proposed building a solar farm south of Chicago near the Indiana border. It appears from the proposed placement that it is right on the path of a major migration route for many species of birds, including waterfowl and songbirds.

    How many bird carcasses can we count on seeing down the road from this asinine crap? And why is it necessary to build something like that when a better solution is already at work? And whose money is subsidizing this idiocy? It’s idiocy when we don’t have the sunny-day count required to supply a steady load to the power grid. How will this work out in a solar minimum when EMPs appear to be more common during a minimum than not? And no, I have no idea who came up with this, but you can bet it will cost consumers plenty, never mind the toll on wildlife.

    • Sara, while driving from DC to Alaska this past November I was surprised to see a massive solar farm in western Minnesota, on both sides of I-94. When I saw it, I couldn’t believe who would think of putting a huge solar farm in the middle of northwest Minnesota, an area that is as far north as one can be in the lower 48s, across multiple bird flyways, and guaranteed to be covered in snow close to 6 months of the year. I also made note of the deep shadows underneath the tightly packed acres of solar panels, which guaranteed that no greenery would grow under them. No way a project like that, in that location, makes any sense at any time, short of as a way to suck some government funds. Insane.

  20. The remaining 28% of the Budget should be directed to studying nuclear power and fluidized-bed coal, None of it should go to the study of Wind-Turbines powered by Don Quixote or Solar Plants powered by Fried Chickens.

    • Prior to the changes in the civil service laws, a new administration would do a clean sweep of most of the civil service positions and put in people who would be loyal to that administration.
      Today, the civil service is only loyal to itself and it’s first priority to enhance the power and wealth of those who work in the civil service.

  21. Re: “clean energy”, 1/10/2018:

    Once upon a time, clean energy meant complete combustion. That included maximizing CO2, a beneficial greening agent. However, the amount of CO2 a nation emits is a measure of its industrialization, raising emission control to a key anti-Western strategy, especially anti-US, to pave the road to Marxism for the new bourgeoisie.

    The left calls the notion that man’s emissions have an effect on climate, science when in fact it is the most pernicious form of pseudoscience, carrying a price tag estimated at $30 trillion. And the left is as anxious to control school curricula as it is the climate vocabulary, e.g., clean energy, to “make sure”, as our leader recently was wont to say for a chronic lack of active verbs, that the voting public doesn’t acquire too much science literacy.

    Now science places no requirement on investigators to build models faithful to real world processes, so long as the models are successful, that is, so long as they have predictive power. The GCMs on that scale, however, are in the abyss of failure. They are successful in one sense, shaking down democracies run by elected graduates of our public school system, but those models have zero predictive power, should anyone care.

    The GCMs predict two crucial things: (1) an irreversible warming of about 3ºC from the Greenhouse Effect applied to the accumulation of man’s CO2 emissions over the next century, a number which conveniently cannot be validated in anyone’s lifetime, and (2) a rate for that increase in temperature of 3ºC for a doubling of CO2, called (unscientifically) the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (cause nothing in the climate system is ever in thermodynamic equilibrium). Current ECS estimates from data not only show that it has a piddling magnitude of about 0.7ºC per 2xCO2, but analysis shows that the sign is wrong! CO2 lags warming, as physics demands, and does not lead warming as the pseudoscience asserts. Climatologists have yet to bother to estimate whether CO2 leads temperature, per their models, or vice versa, as physics should have informed them, and as verified in the Vostok ice core records.

    Failure of the models opens them to legitimate criticism.

    AGW pseudoscience fails for two major scientific omissions. First, the GCMs parameterize cloud cover as constant when instead it is dynamic and effecting the largest feedbacks in all of climatology, negative with respect to Total Solar Irradiance, and positive with respect to Sea Surface Temperature. Those two missing feedbacks mitigate both warming and cooling from any cause, manmade (should there ever be any) or natural.

    Secondly, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by Henry’s Law, which causes the ocean to emit CO2 to the atmosphere when thousand-year-old deep waters upwell to be heated by the Sun, and to absorb CO2 immediately as the surface waters recharge by cooling as they slowly return to the poles. See the Takahashi diagram, AR4, Figure 7.8, p. 523, which is also a proxy for surface temperature, even though the fluxes are low by a factor of about 1/40.

    IPCC puts the primary reservoirs for CO2 flux at 762 (atmosphere) and 918 GtC (surface ocean), the natural flux at about 90 GtC/year, and man’s emissions at 6.4 GtC/year. AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515. Man’s estimated emissions are exceedingly small relative to the uncertainty in estimating reservoir size or flux. They amount to no more than 7% of the natural flux and 0.3%/year of the reservoirs, numbers lost in estimation noise. Secondly on climate scales, man’s emissions are absorbed in the ocean immediately as the surface cools, to be carried to the bottom. Man’s energy exhaust, whether dirty or clean, since 1750, nominally over the Industrial Era, about three centuries ago, still has about 2 to 7 centuries to go before the part that hasn’t been absorbed into the intermediate ocean layers or sequestered in rock or sediment is returned to the surface.

    “Clean Energy” is a double whammy, a figment of AGW, the pseudoscience.

    • That’s lot’s of impressive figures there. But tell me this: how come Earth hasn’t seen anywhere near CO2 levels this high in at least the last 800,000 years?

      • What is the significance of that? We know CO2 at ~5000 ppm/v did nothing in terms of temperature of any significance.

      • Jeff Glassman Well said.

        There is nothing clean about wind, solar, biomass, geothermal or hydro when one considers all of their life cycle costs and impacts.

        Earth is a dirty place. It takes energy to make clean.

      • Read this again, Kristi:

        “IPCC puts the primary reservoirs for CO2 flux at 762 (atmosphere) and 918 GtC (surface ocean), the natural flux at about 90 GtC/year, and man’s emissions at 6.4 GtC/year. AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515. Man’s estimated emissions are exceedingly small relative to the uncertainty in estimating reservoir size or flux. They amount to no more than 7% of the natural flux and 0.3%/year of the reservoirs, numbers lost in estimation noise.”

      • Kristi,
        Q: Why do plants grow more robustly and use other nutrients more efficiently with CO2 levels approximating 1500 ppm, yet current atmospheric CO2 levels are only 400ppm?
        A: Plants are adapted to and need higher CO2 levels than have been available in our atmosphere for the last 800,000 years.

        Why do you insist on withholding essential nutrients from all flora on Planet Earth?
        If we really want a ‘greener planet’, we must feed the green plants more CO2.

      • Primarily the result of India colliding into Asia, raising the Himalayas. CO2 levels started to plummet at those times and haven’t recovered yet.

      • Kristi, dont be fed your education. This lie has become a mindless catechism. Records before 1958 of CO2 in the atmoshpere are from proxies that are averages of rough estimates over several centuries. If you took an average of the most recent several centuries, our data point would be ~280ppm. The point? the medieval warm period may have had similar spikes in CO2 that are lost in averaging.

        Finally, we had a pause in earth temperatures that coincided with a 30 % increase in CO2. Weve also had long periods of millions of years with CO2 at 5000ppm. There is so much more but I’ll wait until I see if you are actually interested.

      • @ Kristi Silber February 10, 2018 at 10:38 pm
        That’s lot’s of impressive figures there. But tell me this: how come Earth hasn’t seen anywhere near CO2 levels this high in at least the last 800,000 years?

        Easy. Because the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old and the talking point you regurgitated is cherry-picked to incite emotion from scientifically ignorant and illiterate people like you.

        Is it really not that hard for you to figure out? Seriously?

      • Kristi Silber, 2/10/18 @ 10:38 asked, how come Earth hasn’t seen anywhere near CO2 levels this high in at least the last 800,000 years?

        The 800,000 data she cites is from ice cores. At Dome-C and Vostok, CO2 oscillates between about 170 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The data span almost 800 Kyrs at Dome-C and 414 Kyrs at Vostok. These records constitute samples of atmospheric CO2 accumulated over the firn closure time:

        The difference (closure time) between the age of the gas and the age of the ice can be as much as 7,000 years, as is the case in ice cores from Vostok, or as little as 30 years at Law Dome. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Historical_Geology/Ice_cores

        The closure time for CO2 measurements at MLO is about 1 minute. This aperture effect constitutes a low pass filter with a time constant proportional to collection period. That windowing delays the response time while attenuating the magnitude of the thing collected, each in proportion to the duration of collection window. At MLO, that time is about one minute, and is the standard used by IPCC not only to estimate CO2 concentration but to calibrate all its measuring stations into artificial and unscientific agreement.

        IPCC routinely glues nearly instantaneous modern readings on top of the heavily low pass filtered proxy data. See AR4 Figure 6.4, p. 448. This is scientific incompetence, yet IPCC is so proud of its handiwork that it features this misrepresentation as the very first figure in its Summary for Policymakers. AR4 SPM Figure SPM.1, p. 3. It’s also a major cause behind Mann’s Hockey Stick.

        The loss of information in low pass filtering is unrecoverable, but a comparison with the modern record can be made at least as a thought experiment. Just imagine how the modern record would look if it were averaged over hundreds or thousands of years to correspond in gain to the ice core data! An event like the entire instrument record at MLO would be all but undetectable.

        Lastly, the modern record is heavily biased high because MLO sits in the plume of roughly 60% of the 90 GtC outgassed annually from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. There, Earth’s rotation draws bottom water, saturated in CO2 at near freezing temperatures, to the surface to be continuously heated by the Sun, releasing CO2 per Henry’s Law.

        Charles Keeling warned, only a limited number of sampling locations are required, however, provided that they are remote from large local sources and sinks of CO2. Bold added, Keeling, C.D., et al., Exchanges of Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the Terrestrial Biosphere and Oceans from 1978 to 2000, I. Global Aspects, SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06, June 2001. Instead, IPCC hitched all its sampling to MLO, distorting the entire CO2 record.

        At any time, the concentration of CO2 outgassed from the Pacific is much greater than atmospheric CO2 averaged over many decades to a half dozen millennia.

      • You base that assertion on an apples vs. oranges comparison of PROXY records to atmospheric measurements. IOW, the usual nonsense.

  22. I wonder if Trump (or most of you) has taken into account the huge and expanding global market for renewable energy products and technology and expertise as the energy needs in the developing world rise. Those countries with accessible FF reserves will probably go that route, but in some cases renewables may be more economical. China’s production of solar panels has gotten so efficient and cheap that in some areas and circumstance solar is cheaper than FF.

    The U.S. has long been among the world’s leaders in R&D across a wide range of fields, but I guess that’s not where we want to be with renewables. We could miss out on a big opportunity.

    This is just a cross-section of projects from one energy company in Spain:
    “One of its biggest research initiatives is the SIGMA project, which is a joint scheme with the University of Salamanca to develop revolutionary lasers that will ionise pollutant gases for later use as raw materials.

    “It is also developing, alongside the Barcelona Supercomputing Center, the SEDAR Project. This will see new software created that will help advance studies in onshore and offshore wind production.

    “The company has also launched its own technology centre in Qatar, which is dedicated towards developing smart grids. This has been done in conjunction with local electricity company Kahramaa, and will lead to both a feasibility study and a pilot project in the country.

    “Last year it announced that it was joining forces with Swedish wave energy convertor specialist firm CorPower Ocean and Portuguese marine research centre WavEC to produce high efficiency wave power technology. The €15m HiWave project will look to harness wave power using advanced compact devices which will efficiently generate offshore power. It is hoped that the project will be completed by 2016, which could transform the marine energy industry.”
    http://reports.worldfinance.com/technological-advances-in-renewable-energy/

    There seems to be a systematic, multi-pronged effort by this administration to crush the renewable energy industry, presumably in order to help the FF industry.

    • “Kristi Silber February 10, 2018 at 10:30 pm

      There seems to be a systematic, multi-pronged effort by this administration to crush the renewable energy industry, presumably in order to help the FF industry.”

      That’s good news for humanity!

      • Fascinating how not supporting something is the equivalent to crushing it.
        Leftists certainly do have interesting takes on reality.

    • “The €15m HiWave project will look to harness wave power using advanced compact devices which will efficiently generate offshore power. It is hoped that the project will be completed by 2016…”

      OK. It is 2018. How did that work out? Appears to have disappeared, like Solyndra.

      You forgot to mention this part for 2013-2016:

      “Total Funding (Requested EU contribution): € 2 328 484”

      http://www.wavec.org/en/projects/hiwave#.Wn_yqExFyM9

      Of course this consortium or whatever it is exactly will also chip in “WavEC Funding: € 249 530” which they get from some other taxpayer generated Green slush fund.

      “WavEC – Offshore Renewables is involved in several projects with European and national funding.”

      So this is just another poster child for the way Green parasites waste money that could be used for much, much better purposes.

    • “There seems to be a systematic, multi-pronged effort by this administration to crush the renewable energy industry, presumably in order to help the FF industry.”
      That is hilarious, coming from the side that for eight long years tried to kill coal in particular, and to harm fossil fuels in general, in favor of “clean” “green” “renewables”.
      And now that we have an administration that is simply trying to re-level the playing field, the cries from the Warmunists is “that’s no fair”! Waaaaah! LOL.

    • Government creates a phoney market, then uses the existence of that phoney market to justify investments in that phoney market.

    • Kristi:

      Your entire argument seems to fall prey to the “begging the question” logical fallacy. It would appear you presuppose that renewable energy is the way to go without really having any evidence for that assumption.

      You yourself substantiate my claim:

      “Those countries with accessible FF reserves will probably go that route, but in some cases renewables may be more economical.”

      So far, which developing countries do you know with FF reserves have gone with renewable solutions instead and at what percentage? Who is funding the effort if the effort is renewable? If, as you say, “in some cases renewables may be more economical”, wouldn’t it be prudent to understand the truth of that claim before effort is placed in the solution? After all, we have to assume that developing countries are cash strapped do we not?

      And then you also seem to presuppose that any of the cited research projects will produce viable solutions. How do you know this will happen? Given they are research projects at present, it’s entirely unknown how viable the final product will be. And if the final product is an unknown at present, does this not pretty much destroy your argument in toto?

      If not, why not?

      • On the bright side:

        “But since 2011, investment in renewables has stalled. From 2011 to 2017, global green energy investment grew at only 0.7 percent per year—essentially flat. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2017 investment in renewables grew only 1 percent in the US, but was down 16 percent in Japan, down 20 percent in India, down 26 percent in Germany, and down 56 percent in the United Kingdom. Investment in China was up 26 percent, supporting a meagre 3 percent global renewable investment growth in 2017…

        So why is renewable investment faltering? One answer is that renewable projects are heavily dependent upon subsidies, and subsidies are being cut. The combination of rising electricity prices and budget-busting subsidy bills is forcing nations to cut back.”

        http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/stop-the-stall-its-time-to-get-energetic-about-energy/

  23. When is a budget cut not a cut in spending? Government Accounting: Example: This year Spending $1000.00 for XYZ Next year Purposed spending for XYZ: $2000.00. Government say no you can only spend $1500.00. Reported in the news evil politicians is cutting spending.

    • According to leftists, the only people who can properly judge how much an agency needs, are those who work in that agency.
      Anyone who fails to give the agency everything it asks for is guilty of preventing that agency from performing it’s holy work.

  24. On a more serious note, what are the environmental impacts of all these heads exploding? We seem to be approaching a tipping point. Runaway Green head popping appears imminent and all that angry gas could threaten penguins or something.

  25. When you can’t make any progress in refuting the science, all you have left is to celebrate temporary political victories achieved by alignment with demented egomaniacs who will hitch their wagon to any cause to satisfy their narcisssitic need for affirmation wherever they can find it.

    • ==>Donald

      It’s obvious that you are speaking from personal experience and therefore, are at some considerable risk of Projection!*

      *The unconscious transfer of ones own disposition to another!

    • The scientific knowledge on this website dwarfs whatever leftist site that gave you your one talking point.

    • Ad Hominem Donnie?

      Isn’t that typical of the ilks of thee?

      And don’t you mock yourself by using such here rather than the science you claim to understand?

  26. “and energy efficiency programs, slashing them by 72 percent overall in fiscal 2019”

    Energy efficiency? Slashing research by 72%?

    Why are we even spending anything on efficiency? Stoopid greenies. Do you know how hard it is for fossil fuel companies to make an honest buck without sandal-wearing basket weavers poking there “efficient” noses in.

    • “Energy efficiency”, what a joke. It sounds so good too – who could possibly be against it? Until you realize they really do only care about using less energy, no matter what the cost is.

      • Companies have been investing in energy efficiency since companies started using energy. (Somewhere between 10K and 20K years ago.)
        The reason for this is simple, energy costs money and companies that spend more than they need to for a resource quickly go out of business.

      • “who could possibly be against it?”

        Only you it appears Bruce . No-one loses from improving energy efficient, sooo, who are you saying doesn’t care about the cost?

    • “…without sandal-wearing basket weavers poking there [sic] “efficient” noses in.”

      “…without sandal-wearing basket weavers poking THEIR “efficient” noses in.”

      There, partially fixed for you. No you do the math on ending the sentence with a preposition…such horrific grammar from the ilks of the thee, i.e., the best and the brightest by your own admission?

      “No-one loses from improving energy efficient [sic}, sooo…”

      “No-one loses from improving energy efficiency, sooo…”

      There, fixed it for you.

      You’re welcome…glad to help those in need.

  27. Ack!-Ack!

    Cuts down on yodeling … always a good thing

    Subsidy seakers have become the new Captains of Industry, so let’s see the actual economics of this tech’s asserted market maturity, laid bare, as trading insolvent, into bankrupcy.

    “Dey took our jabs!”

    Then we can ignore greenie economic and technical ‘thought’, politics and hand-waving, as proven a failure.

    Let the real-world testing commence, swindlers.

  28. Gang Green’s exploding heads are pollution and messy to boot.
    Surely these “protectors of the environment” could have the decency to allow their craniums to implode.
    Which would be so much tidier and more fitting for the vacuum of knowledge that exists inside those heads.
    If it were not for the ever expanding amount of bovine faeces causing their confusion and anger, they would not be such walking threats to civilization and our shared environment.

    The environmental activist is willing to do ANYTHING to Save The Environment.
    Absolutely Anything.
    Except gain an education in the relevant sciences and become informed themselves.
    Talking Points,must feel so good.
    Or there would not be so many activists spewing them.
    My heart felt wish,if one chooses to remain ignorant of science, especially the scientific method,while engaging in “educating” other persons as an activist from Gang Green International;
    Please contain your own waste.

  29. Here are the BBC again barking orders at the Indians of Tamil Nadu, on how to respond to the seasonality of wind power by increasing the generation from renewables from 50 to 100 percent, phasing out coal in the process:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42971504

    Half your energy is from a seasonal source (wind).
    The other half is from a reliably continuous source, 24/7/365 – coal.
    So how to solve the seasonality problem?
    Simple – change to 100% of the seasonal source (wind, solar).

    Wow – the logic would have impressed Aristotle himself.

    Still barking orders at the natives?
    Do the BBC journalists realise India is no longer in the British Empire?

  30. Chris, 2/13/18 @ 10:00 pm, said, They have looked at the science regarding AGW and decided it is real. You can criticize them all you want, but it doesn’t matter.

    AGW, once a scientific conjecture (Callendar), is off the scale of scientific models, thanks in large part to climatologists’ models (GCMs) using radiative forcing with a handful of unwarranted assumptions (equilibrium, manmade CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere, Henry’s Law missing, feedbacks ignored), models invalidated by facts (sensitivity below 3% confidence, two-plus decades of absent warming, surface temperature following the Sun). AGW and the science supporting are real just in the sense of political movements and belief systems. But the assumption that AGW exists in the real world reduces the entire narrative to scripture.

    Academic science is coming unglued in the on-going, 50-year-old Replication Crisis, which is just a way of observing that the validity of scientific models is proportional not to a consensus, neither to peer review nor to publication, but to their predictive power.

Comments are closed.