Fauxcahontas must be dumber than schist

Guest fake American Indian bashing by David Middleton


This post is extremely political. If you are offended by hardball politics, stop reading here. Comments to the effect that you don’t like political posts or are offended political incorrectness and moderately insensitive language will be mercilessly ridiculed.

Fauxcahontas is truly a “stupid and futile gesture”…

A climate denier-in-chief sits in the White House today. But not for long

Elizabeth Warren

The next president must rejoin the Paris agreement and show the world that the United States is ready to lead on the international stage again

President Trump has now fulfilled his disastrous promise to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. The agreement represents decades of work by both Democratic and Republican administrations to achieve a common goal: bringing every country of the world together to tackle the climate crisis, the existential threat of our time.

President Trump surprised no one with his decision to withdraw from the agreement. It is yet another reckless choice in line with his steps to rollback our bedrock environmental laws, which have cleaned up our water and our air for decades. But that doesn’t minimize the gravity of his latest move. Trump is not only ceding American leadership at a critical juncture in the fight against climate change, he’s also giving away American jobs in the clean energy economy of the future – walking away from the greatest economic opportunity of our time.


But instead of acting to protect American lives and creating good paying jobs, we have let Big Oil set our climate policy in Washington. These companies spent three decades deceiving the public about the climate crisis, spreading lies and misinformation through their lobbyists. With Donald Trump in the White House, they now have a climate denier in chief.


My Green Manufacturing Plan will jumpstart clean energy development right here in the United States by investing $2tn to grow clean energy at home and abroad, while creating millions of new, good paying, union jobs. And my Green Marshall Plan would directly assist countries abroad to buy American-made clean energy products, further expanding markets for green manufacturing.


The world is facing one of the biggest threats we have ever encountered. But Americans do not walk away from a fight. We lead. In November 2020, it won’t just be Donald Trump on the ballot but also the chance to renew America’s climate leadership for a safer, cleaner, more secure and more prosperous future.

The Grauniad

Notes to Liawatha

There are very few electoral votes in the UK

Writing an OpEd in the Grauniad is as dumb as Puto (Beto) campaigning in Mexico.

The Paris Agreement will have no affect on the weather

Figure 1. “Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100.” (Bjorn Lomborg)

The energy industry isn’t a jobs program

Why do journalists, environmentalists and liberals (redundant, I know) confuse energy production with jobs programs?  The only way an economy can successfully grow in a healthy, robust manner is through increasing productivity.

What is ‘Productivity’
Productivity is an economic measure of output per unit of input. Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other gross domestic product (GDP) components such as business inventories. Productivity measures may be examined collectively (across the whole economy) or viewed industry by industry to examine trends in labor growth, wage levels and technological improvement.

BREAKING DOWN ‘Productivity’
Productivity gains are vital to the economy, as they mean that more is being accomplished with less. Capital and labor are both scarce resources, so maximizing their impact is a core concern of modern business. Productivity enhancements come from technology advances, such as computers and the internet, supply chain and logistics improvements, and increased skill levels within the workforce.


That said, the oil & gas industry employs far more Americans than wind & solar power do:

The natural gas industry employs 625,369 Americans.

• Utilities employed 176,167.

• Mining and extraction employed 162,928.

• Construction employed 113,339.

The coal industry employs 197,418 Americans.

• Mining and extraction employed 55,905.

• Utilities employed 45,795.

• Wholesale trade employed 43,327.

The petroleum industry employs 799,531 Americans.

• Mining and extraction employs 308,681.

• Wholesale trade and distribution employs 170,945.

• Manufacturing employs 155,267.

The nuclear industry employs 72,146 Americans.

• Utilities employ 46,809.

• Professional services employ 14,374.

• Manufacturing employ 4,913.

2019 U.S. Energy and Employment Report

• Solar energy firms employed 242,000 employees who spent the majority of their time on solar.[3] An additional 93,000 employees spent less than half their time on solar-related work. The number of employees who spend the majority of their time on solar declined by 3.2 percent or more than 8,000 jobs in 2018.

• There were an additional 111,000 workers employed at wind energy firms across the nation in 2018, an increase of 3.5 percent or 3,700 jobs.

2019 U.S. Energy and Employment Report

The Energy and Employment Report lists “mining and extraction” for oil and gas as two separate groups. This doesn’t make sense because oil & gas are explored for, drilled and produced by the same people. The “mining and extraction” employees are probably redundant.

Regarding productivity, there is no comparison between “renewables” and real energy:

Figure 2. Energy industry productivity expressed as tons of oil equivalent (TOE) per job.

Energy production is from the 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy. I did not include the natural gas “mining and extraction” employees because I think they are also counted among petroleum employees. If I count them, oil & gas productivity drops to 1,583 TOE/job.

“In November 2020, it won’t just be Donald Trump on the ballot but also the chance to renew America’s climate leadership for a safer, cleaner, more secure and more prosperous future.”

Anyone with at least two functioning brain cells knows that a vote for your treasonous energy schemes would be a vote against “a safer, cleaner, more secure and more prosperous future.”

226 thoughts on “Fauxcahontas must be dumber than schist

  1. I call it the Green Door program.

    1) Pass a law that every house has to have its front door painted green.

    2) This will create loads of work and jobs for decoarators and paint factories

    3) They will spend this money in the wider economy, thus boosting GDP

    Can anyone spot the problem?

    • Who pays for it and what would they have spent the cash on if they didn’t have to spend it on their front doors?

      • Bingo! We have a winner.
        The false assumption in the broken window falacy is that the money would not be spent. It would but on other stuff that the owner thought more important. You know little things like food, shelter, health care, getting out of debt, education for the kids, beer 🙂

        But it is always better if we have a buerocracy telling us what to spend on because they know so much better than we do what we need/want.

    • It is not nearly as dumb as, “And my Green Marshall Plan would directly assist countries abroad to buy American-made clean energy products, further expanding markets for green manufacturing. ”

      Can anyone spot the problem there?

      • As in the UK and Europe (and no doubt elsewhere in the western world), the energy costs will be so high in the US that manufacturing and jobs will be “offshored” by US firms to places like the Far East where energy costs will be much cheaper, or will simply be carried out by firms domiciled there. Furthermore, the much higher energy prices will reduce consumers’ spare cash – that would otherwise be spent within the US economy – significantly. So the effect on the US economy as a whole will be negative, possibly strongly so.

      • Simple answer: We give them our money so they buy our product.

        True-er answer: We give them our money in the hope that they buy our product.

        Correct answer: We give them our money and the dictator in charges takes it.

        • The dictator then buys a French-made Falcon jet and a new Mercedes or Rolls Royce limo, each with massive fossil fuel needs. Then he buys the oil from Iran to make the kerosene fuels they burn.

        • We borrow money from Red China to give it to Third World Schist Hole Dictators, so that they can by ChiCom products.

      • Joel O’Bryan – November 8, 2019 at 11:02 am

        Can anyone spot the problem there?

        I “spotted” it before you asked, I think, to wit:

        Elizabeth WarrenAnd my Green Marshall Plan would directly assist countries abroad to buy American-made clean energy products, further expanding markets for green manufacturing.

        Elizabeth Warren’s ….. “Horn of Plenty”, …… to wit:

        Mandating “high taxes” be paid by the expanding US “green energy” markets which said tax money will be given to …… “directly assist countries abroad to buy American-made clean energy products” which will further expand the US market.

    • All our exterior doors are already green, How do we get to help us on the road to prosperity?

      • Paint them green again, obviously. 🙂

        If prosperity is what you seek, enlightened self-interest would suggest that you forfeit your moral integrity and get into the green paint business.

        I don’t see that happening.

      • “Retired_Engineer_Jim November 8, 2019 at 1:10 pm

        All our exterior doors are already green, How do we get to help us on the road to prosperity?”

        On the roads? Ever thought of cladding rural pick up trucks with roof tiles on the weather side?

    • They must also prohibit the import of green paint, paint brushes, ladders and other painter’s tools and equipment. The economy will thrive, believe me. Or not.

    • Decoarators (politicians?) won’t actually have anything to do, since there are no choices to be made?

      Green is not a primary colour, so there’s no such thing as ‘pure green’. Some would simply find their own mix of blue and yellow that would make the door appear ‘green’ without their buying any green paint?

      Colour only exists in human perception, so there’s no such thing as a “green’ door, only a door that appears green to most people?

      Green absorbs a lot of red, and it would keep trying to change the green into red.

      People would complain about the high cost of green even if it cost more or less the same as any other colour of front door and they had a century to switch.

      The makers of non green doors would wand a pigment tax and trading scheme that wouldn’t require any actual repainting of any doors.

      I can’t just find just one problem. You could probably do a whole blog on it.

    • Blindness vs. Stupidity:

      The foolishness of the left is mostly blindness, a kind of dishonest relationship with reality, and not stupidity, in the sense of general inability to learn or solve puzzles. Stupid people are slow, but eventually learn. People blind to reality are pathologic. They will not learn, because they look away from reality.

      The blindness has to do with:
      1. They tend to be hate-filled, envious unhappy individuals, often greedy, dishonest and abusive in their personal lives.
      2. They cannot look at themselves with their unbearable guilts that accumulate in their lives. They do not want to see their own natural, if exaggerated, greeds and envies…..so they look away. They are then blind, not stupid.
      3. The guilt is there, threatening at the edge of their awareness. They are anxious about it, but cannot look at it straight in the eye. Often they are cowards, especially in front of a mirror.
      4. They need confirmation somehow that actually they are virtuous….that the guilt that lurks around them is not really right.
      5. So they engage in conspicuous virtue. “See what a good person I am”. They are phonies.
      6. As a corollary to their sense of guilt and envy of happier people, leftist often hate and tear down people of ordinary qualities. (I believe ordinary people, on balance, tend to be nice, mostly honest day to day, compassionate without need to virtue signal, generous to those in need, attracted to winners, distance themselves from losers, and in general live positive lives, even if poor or modest in lifestyle.)
      7. The realm of politics, wherein you can virtue signal by spending other people’s money, is perfect for envious, angry, hate-filled leftists.
      8. Elizabeth Warren. Phony virtue, phony heritage, embracing phony climate science.

    • Bingo ! Just like those who have high paying jobs, without bearing to weight of having their own money invested in their own business, she is not fit to lead a nation.

  2. Thanks for this, Mr. Middleton. Your tone is more than deserved. I am beginning to believe it is necessary. Our fellow citizens of the world are being brainwashed and and those who are not, are being mercilessly attacked by the Ms. Warren’s of the world.

    We need a Winston Churchill attitude because the enemies of Western Civilization and enlightenment are using the Trojan Horse of s climate crisis Otto destroy is.

  3. If they really want to employ people and generate energy just get them running on treadmills linked to generators. Obesity problem solved as well.

  4. Unh. Locohontas heap crazy, speak with forked tongue. But wind farms provide work for people, running around to pick up the dead birds. No other form of energy can make that statement!

  5. I had to look up the word, “Puto.”

    Thanks for the laugh. 🙂 Your posts are always very informative and enlightening.

  6. Not only is the climate effect of Paris tiny, it’s insignificant effect assumes the wildly inflated ECS along with the rest of the bogus pseudo-science presumed by the IPCC. Apply some real science and the climate effect of Paris is further reduced to become even less than insignificant.

  7. You could take the number of employees per type of energy source, and the energy produced by that energy source, and calculate units of power created per employee.

    This would show how we are wasting time with the solar employees relative to those in oil and gas.

    • Exactly.

      One of my pet peeves is blowhards arguing that green energy initiatives put more people to work, per unit of energy, than other types of energy. They say it like it is a good thing, and I know some people hear it that way, but their claim is equivalent to arguing that green energy production is horribly inefficient.

      • Bingo. I forget which economist was visiting China. China at the time was building roads using man power with shovels. A China official said look how many people we employ. The economist responded with if your objective is to employ people take away their shovels, hire more people and give them spoons.

      • Solar productivity is analogous to digging a ditch with a shovel while the back-up diesel engine-driven backhoe sits idle right beside it in case the shovel operator gets tired and goes on break. When the shovel operator has to go eat lunch, then the backhoe operator finishes the 6 hour ditch job in 15 minutes. And even if you don’t use the backhoe, you still have to pay for the operator and the capital costs to sit there idle in case the shovel operator tires or his shovel breaks on a rock.

        • Milton Friedman replying to the government bureaucrat of one Asian country who told him the reason why there were workers with shovels instead of modern tractors and earth movers at a worksite of a new canal: ‘You don’t understand. This is a jobs program’ :
          ‘Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels’.

        • So is the perfect Green plan one where the entire population is employed generating enough power to continuously replace the power generation system?

          I fear the answer is “Yes”.

    • My preferred metric is the number of children per one orange. Leaders are probably Russia and China.

    • That is what David did in the right most column of the table, TOE/Job.
      This shows that nuclear is best and solar is worst.
      In general you can say that the more energy dens the power source is, the cheaper the conversion is. In theory nuclear ought to give a considerately higher TOE/Job, but nuclear is complex and is burdened with a lot of security measures. This could eventually change with newer natural stable reactor, that do not depend on huge water flow for primary cooling. I am here thinking of MSR and it’s like.

  8. Educators should be required to deliver a curriculum that includes the hard lessons societies have learned under the heading “Hope Over Experience”.

    Prominent in these lessons would be –
    “The Fallacy Of Grid Scale Delivery Of Electricity Generated Solely From Wind & Solar Installations”

    If civilization is to “progress”, it can’t keep repeating patently failing “solutions”. This is a no-brainer.

    • Mr. – November 8, 2019 at 11:08 am

      Educators should be required to …….

      After graduation, …… all Education Majors/Minors should be required to “work two (2) years employment” (apprenticeship) ……. at a “job” requiring their learned “skills” before they are permitted to be a “teacher” of said skills.

  9. Somebody has to stick these dreamers with cold hard reality. If they want net zero CO2 by 2050, they have to start building a nuclear power plant every day until then. link All this crap about renewables is just wasting time.

    Why aren’t the politicians forced to deal with the actual arithmetic of the situation?

    • commieBob – November 8, 2019 at 11:11 am

      Why aren’t the politicians forced to deal with the actual arithmetic of the situation?

      Well now, the short answer is, ……. its like the Jerry Clower song states, ….. “Momma don’t want you messing with the deal she’s got!”

    • “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” 
Thomas Sowell

  10. Come on guys, there is only one Human Race, different from all animals, us.
    Even Neanderthals, to the great horror of Oxford paleontologist narrators, were just like Homo Sapiens.

    And as far as Amerinds go , we know the Phoenicians already claimed Maine.
    Look up Algonquin, cherokee or Takhelne research.

    The entire Oxford “autochtonous” native British Imperial narrative is junk science, a classic British Imperial racist lurch, divide and conquer with a sciency polish.

    And after all how do you know who jumped over the garden wall 2 generations ago?
    See Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

    This Candidate does support Glass-Steagall, causing uproar in London, has been infected, though, with GND brainwashing, from the same elites that brainwashed all with “autochtonous” “human races”.

    I would hope WUWT hopefuls would be more resistant to such British Tavistock brain-washing, than Dems?

    • Conrad Black refers to:

      … notoriously ragged self-defined communities of partially pre-European descended people … link

      My peace loving ancestors were driven out of what is now Germany by the French some time around 1700. Does that mean I have the right to claim a couple of acres of German soil at the expense of the French government?

    • ”Different from all animals”

      Nah, we’re just less hairy Apes, with brains a bit bigger. However its probably the case that the lower apes do as Nikita Khrushchev famously suggested, and dont schist were they eat ? Clearly any adoption of The Green new Deal would have the effect of doing just that 🙂

      • I am sure that way back in the Paleo, when a bright young spark runs into the cave holding a burning stick and proclaims loudly he stole fire, hair somewhat singed, was immediately attacked, even stoned. After all the roots and nuts dinner was already laid out!

        From that moment, though, nothing was ever again the same.

        The nostalgia for that cave seems to be a Jungian Archetype.

    • Bonbon

      “…Even Neanderthals, to the great horror of Oxford paleontologist narrators, were just like Homo Sapiens….”

      With all due respect to Oxford guys in ivory towers, the rest of us have noticed that even though Homo sapiens and Neanderthals lived side by side for thousands of years, Neanderthals went extinct. Probably means there’s a difference the Oxford guys overlooked.

      • NAH, …. the Neanderthals didn’t go extinct …. they were bred into extinction via interracial marriages they were forced to comply with by groups of lefty liberal “do-gooder’ H. sapiens.

        Thus the purebred Neanderthals slowly disappeared from the fossil record ….. and the bi-racial offspring became the dominant H. sapien species.

        Cheers, ….. Eritas Rabuf

    • bonbon – November 8, 2019 at 11:12 am

      Even Neanderthals, to the great horror of Oxford paleontologist narrators, were just like Homo Sapiens.

      If they were just like Homo sapiens then they would NOT be categorized as Homo neanderthalensis.

      And there is not much to “look up” about the Cherokee ……. because there is nothing to know/learn about their origin. Even their DNA has not provided any clues as to where they originated from.

      • Even their DNA has not provided any clues as to where they originated from.

        seeing as we don’t know, I’m not saying they must be Aliens, but they must be aliens! 😉 (without apologies to Giorgio A. Tsoukalos).

  11. I don’t think we’ll have to worry about Elizabeth Warren’s primary run much longer. Her wealth tax scheme has scared off the rich from supporting here. I saw one story saying Bezos would pay billions in taxes under her plan and another where Bill Gates said in a hypothetical matchup between Warren and Trump he couldn’t vote for Warren. She’s biting the hand that feeds her and that doesn’t bode well for a presidential run where billions will be needed by election night. Billions that come from the rich and big business who will be hurt under her plan.

    Really I don’t know which democrat will win the primary. The (few) more reasonable candidates are getting vilified or little press exposure. “Popular” candidates are shooting themselves in the foot with the very people they need to get the nomination with their stated policies. On top of that Bernie’s had a heart attack which makes his run even less likely to succeed (we do like to pretend our candidates will remain in good health over their term). Then there’s Biden, he’s still earning his nickname of “Gaffs Biden” while his son is an anchor around his neck. In truth Biden is to old, to white with his worse sin being to moderate to survive todays democratic party nomination process.

    It’s going to be an interesting primary season.

    • Enter Bloomberg! An establishment darling with a long record of centrist policy-making — and he just happens to be a billionaire many times over! link

      Problem solved.

      • “Long record of centerist policy making” Where? Certainly not in NYC where he was the mayor who bribed the city council to allow a third and illegal term. Not to mention Big Gulp bans and other insane infringements on personal liberties.

    • Darrin
      I suspect that Warren and the rest of the wannabes will be sidelined by Bloomberg — unfortunately. Bloomberg could be a serious Trump threat with his deep pockets and connections. Second Amendment supporters will be mobilized against him, however.

      • Bloomberg doesn’t have an identifiable core of support within the Democratic Party. The left belongs to Sanders and Warren. He doesn’t represent any minority group or the working class. Being old, white, and wealthy won’t get you the youth vote.

        He might make some inroads with union members, but most of them support Biden. Besides, the Democrats have just about driven the average working man out of the Party.

        So at best, I see him pulling some votes away from Biden, but that’s about it.

    • Darrin – November 8, 2019 at 11:12 am

      I don’t think we’ll have to worry about Elizabeth Warren’s primary run much longer. Her wealth tax scheme has scared off the rich from supporting here. I saw one story saying Bezos would pay billions in taxes under her plan

      Darrin, …….. GETTA CLUE, ……. that is exactly why the “troughfeeders”, “couchpotatoes” and Medicaid recipients will flock to the Polls to vote for Warren.

      • Samuel Cogar: Hillary made sure the primary voters who flocked to Sanders were blocked by Debbie W. Schulz and the super delegates, and any other dirty trick as necessary. I don’t think Bloomberg, or anybody in the field, has Hillary’s, um, throw-weight. And all of ’em put together don’t have Hill’s knack for the “fix”.

        • You are correct, Paul C.

          Hillary’s experience, expertise and influence in/of illegal and criminal activities goes way back to before “Whitewater”. I think Epstein learned from Hillary and Bill, …… reward the rich & powerful with “quid pro quos” and they will protect you out of fear of being outed.

  12. The Progressives are totally ignorant of science, mathematics, engineering, and economics. Throw in a warped understanding of history and you’ve got some of the dumbest people on earth telling us how to live.

    • Gary
      And along with that, a defining characteristic of ‘progressives’ is that they don’t approve of how things are and think that they can do a better job, and therefore feel a mandate to make changes. It never crosses their minds that they are truly dumb and that’s why they have come to the conclusion that all existing social mores, institutions, and financial systems are wrong. They are disconnected from reality and don’t realize it.

      • Progressivism is the vehicle for the Romantic reaction to Enlightenment reason.

        Progressives themselves have loudly, publicly, and unashamedly supported every single mass-murdering socialist totalitarian of the 20th century, including Hitler (until he broke with Stalin).

        They are opposed to science, to objective knowledge, and to every reasoned value that makes life humane and societies civil. I published on this in, “Progressivism is Hostile to Humanism,” here.

        The struggle is mortal.

        • See Heinrich Heine on the Romantic Movement in his Religion and Philosophy in Germany, around 1834. It takes a poet to precisely pinpoint what “philosophers” miss.

          Heine clearly shows from where Romanticism comes, Emmanuel Kant.
          And predicted with accuracy what happened 100 years later, writing that the German case will make the then recent French Terror look like a coffee shop.

          Kant’s wraith lurches in academic shadows all over the place. No wonder the Uni’s are nests of Romanticism.

  13. FACT: The Native American Elitist ConWoman prefers Gulfstream Corporate Jet transportation when travelling from Cambridge, MA to Des Moines Iowa. 4.5 Hr. (flew back empty) at 300 Gallons of Jet A per hour. Hypocrisy is the foundation of Leftism.

    Beneath contempt, a would-be parasite of gargantuan proportions.

  14. Just so you and the renewable energy advocates know, solar PV in the U.S. will be driven by a further 30 percent drop in costs for utility-scale solar in a drop that wind and labor-intensive rooftop solar cannot match. It will be produced in robotic factories that cut out many jobs in contrast to the job-intensive claims of wrong headed politicos and small biz solar lobbying associations. Even the BOS costs in utility scale are coming down due to the option of using auto loaders on racking. These are facts based on factories and other tech coming online now and in 2020. Misinformation abounds even within the solar industry and of course Washington where getting it wrong is a job requirement.

    Do some due diligence on this before commenting. No one else does.


    • Uh, ResourceGuy: Please source your “… 30 percent drop in costs for utility-scale solar …” Your links are simply First Solar propaganda.

      First Solar’s cost comparisons are a joke. No allowances for intermittent generation, backup, nor storage.

      • See Earnings call Q&A with Wall Street analysts.


        The build out to accomplish that 30 percent reduction is largely done in 2020 with two new plant in Vietnam, one in Ohio, and a mix of converted and not converted lines in Malaysia. The heavy ramp and startup charges against earnings will also be largely over with in 2020. The cost reduction info is not new so it is only discussed as an update with the analysts here and not announced for the first time. The chart info on the cost reduction is in prior earnings call presentations.

        • I read that the projected 30% reduction is only in First Solar’s production costs, comparing one quarter’s production cost to another’s. That is not a 30% reduction in the cost of producing power from industrial solar installations.

          Do you work for First Solar or a related company?

          • It is now the largest producer in the western hemisphere. I guess you’ll be among the last to recognize the impact in solar, on wind, on peaker plants, etc. There is no guarantee in life that everyone gets up to speed at the same time.

          • PS … thanks for reminding us that ALL solar production MUST be offshored to VietNam and Malaysia where there are no environmental regulations or OSHA, or … UNIONS. Huh!? That doesn’t seem to square with Lieawatha’s “green” American jobs.

            And that plant in Ohio? Shuttered in mid 2020, or First Solar goes under.

            Where’s the Yahoo disclaimer that … “Forward looking statements should not be relied upon for serious investment decisions”. Oh that’s right … CALPERS and other Public UNION “green investors” don’t read the disclaimers, they just pump $B’s into stupid businesses, and stick the taxpayers with the LOSSES.

        • ResourceGuy
          Solar is having a new set of problems right now. Perhaps you missed this?

          Duke Energy application points finger at solar for increased pollution

          …“After committing $2 billion in tax credits, and more than $1 billion in electricity overpayments for solar power, we now learn from Duke that nitrogen oxides have actually increased, and that CO2 may be headed in the wrong direction,”

      • The multi year plant and line conversion is being updated quarterly to Wall Street analysts and the public. It’s not a one quarter conversion step but some of the Q&A may sound like that. The technology is from northeast Ohio where the R&D center is and the new plant and suppliers nearby. The original thin film tech was from the inventor Harold McMaster from that area.

    • …and even then, solar cannot compete against either fossil fuel or nuclear without both subsidies and mandates. Why? Because the sun doesn’t shine 24/7, so you have to have backup which usually turns into something FF powered because nuclear takes to long to get all the necessary approvals, and the batteries robust enough to handle all the potential breaks in solar production don’t exist yet. So from the standpoint of systems decisions, it’s not fossil fuel vs. solar, it’s fossil fuel vs fossil fuel+solar. FAIL!!!

    • I have no problem with manufacturing solar or wind parts. i have no problem with generating electric using solar or wind. I do have a problem with governments subsides that industry or any industry. It is not the job of the government to pick winners and losers, it is the job of the government to level the “playing field” for all businesses.

      With the introduction of water base construction products we now have problems with black mold.

      • Agree and the best of breed in any industry is held back when subsidies prop up hundreds of lesser players crowding the field. Eliminate solar subsidy and EV subsidy immediately.

  15. I do not want a “good paying UNION job”
    Unions at this point in history do nothing more than stifle creativity and protect substandard workers. Largely, the unions substitute time for talent anymore.
    There were times in the not so distant past where unions were needed and were the only way to protect the workers. I don’t see the need in this country anymore.

    Seems all the demo candidates are pandering to the unions all of a sudden. Up until the last week, the union card had not been played.

  16. I did not know there was a shortage of jobs in the USA. At 3,6% unemployment there is a shortage of labour not of jobs. Must be a nightmare for the Dems.

    • I suggest that a winning Trump campaign slogan for next year is, “ If you like having a job, you can keep your job – Trump 2020.”

  17. Thank you David. Great article. Were you being slightly understated?
    Surely having a political piece published in a UK newspaper could be considered interference by a foreign country in the 2020 election. The Democrats have made so much of that alleged interference they have done little else since the 2016 election.

    • Marcus
      Along that line, most of the ‘news’ providers in the Yahoo US news are British! Since it is really political opinion instead of facts, it seems to me that it is really an attempt to interfere in US politics. Yet, that seems to be acceptable to the MSM and Democrats.

  18. I think this post would be improved if you took out the personal abuse.

    WUWT is a great source of facts and debate, and the facts you have presented are great. However, a neutral person (who should be the person you’re trying to convince) would probably not get past phrases like “puto” and “fauxcahontas”, especially the first one.

    Your argument is more credible if you call opponents by their actual names and then proceed to shred the nonsense they are presenting. Elizabeth Warren’s lies about her origins have nothing to do with her crazy policies. O’Rourke’s faux-Latino shtick is also irrelevant, and labelling him a prostitute is unjustified personal abuse.

    • I forgot to include this…

      If you’re going to complain about my style and use of words like:


      Don’t bother to comment.

      At best, I will ignore you. At worst, I will ridicule the living schist out of you.

      • And we know Lieawatha speaks with forked calculator. She conveniently forgets the other 3% to pay off student loans, so the real hit (so far) is 9%. So to raise $9 Billion, which Gates doesn’t have stacked in a vault like Scrooge McDuck, Gates has to sell off shares, and pay capital gains on each share he sells. Tthe Dems are also pushing to raise the capital gain tax north of 50%, but let’s go with 50% for now.

        Gates will have to sell off $18 Billon worth of shares — to whom is unclear — if he can get the current price. Probably not so let’s add on another $4 Billion to make up the short on the stock.

        So now we’re at $22 Billion IN THE FIRST YEAR that Gates has to come up with, drum roll please, so Lieawatha’s Billionare Tax is really 22%. And at 22% a year, in FIVE years Gates will no longer be a Billionaire — just a mere multi-millionaire paying the multi-millionaire taxes which should have him down to lower middle class in another 6 years.

        Now that’s the real math — 22% per annum– not Lieawatha math (failed real estate mogul, flamed out self help guru, cultural recipe appropriator). And let’s not even bring up Bernie!

        • It is worse than that. Warren wants to tax the unrealized capital gains at ordinary income tax rates to pay for Medicare for all. Gates would have to pay capital gains on all of his shares, sold or not. To raise cash, he will have to sell more shares, further depressing the stock.

          Assuming Gates is worth $100 billion in Microsoft stock, and his cost basis is near $0, his tax will be $50 billion at a 50% tax rate. Warren’s tax applies every year, so in a few years she has taken all of the money from all of the billionaires. Now where does she get the money to pay for her schemes?

          • Faced with a future like this, there will be no billionaires living in the US by the time the new taxes go into effect. None of her schemes will ever be funded, at least not by them.

            Property values on Caribbean Islands, though, would soar.

      • Sure Dave that makes you the angry little boy shouting in the corner.

        Fwiw, yes I am on your side.

        Now go ahead, waste your ink and try to abuse me, however, it won’t stick as it is in a foreign languague to me anyway. Abuses don’t work if you have to look them up in a dictionary first.

        Na na, na na na

        • Hans, I wouldn’t abuse you. Besides, your line about wasting ink was perfect comedic timing.

          And, I am not “the angry little boy shouting in the corner”. I’m the loudmouth drunk at the end of the bar…


  19. David,
    Thanks again for the productivity table. It takes an almost unimaginable level of both stupidity and incompetence to look at those figures and still think that expanding solar and wind power is an efficient way to grow the economy and create ‘good’ jobs. As for poor Liz, you would think someone with a law degree and taught law for several years would be able to think rationally. Maybe she just checked at the door when she joined the Senate.

  20. Quote: “My Green Manufacturing Plan will jumpstart clean energy development right here in the United States by investing $2tn to grow clean energy at home and abroad, while creating millions of new, good paying, union jobs. ”

    If she is talking about wind and solar when see says “clean energy,” she is either lying or ignorant because wind turbines and solar panels leave toxic waste behind. The blades from wind turbines alone end up in waste dumps.


    Furthermore, pouring $2tn into an industry that is has far lower productivity (compared to the fossil fuels industry) because of poor energy density and intermittency is borderline insane.

    The only fossil fuel replacements that need be given any time, attention and money are next generation nuclear technologies, and the R&D for them is underway now. If Warren is anti-nuclear, then the energy game plan in her Guardian piece is likely going to be a complete and disastrous dead-end. Gold help us if it sees the light of day.

    • Article is from April of 2018.

      Net income down 47% from 3rd qtr of last year. EPS guidance unchanged going forward. Stock fell 11% in October with the earnings announcement. Pop open the champagne.

      Maybe you meant to link to this one about the plant being open…

      Or maybe you didn’t want to link to it because it notes (my caps), “…First Solar has faced challenges on various fronts in recent quarters, INCLUDING INCREASES IN OPERATING COSTS. Last month, it announced it was transitioning away from its internal engineering, procurement and construction model in the U.S. and will instead rely on partners to build projects, with about 100 jobs set to be cut as a result…”

      • “All manufacturers are benefiting from the ongoing U.S. solar boom, driven by continuing cost declines and burgeoning demand from projects racing to capture the value of the soon-to-decline federal Investment Tax Credit for solar modules.”

        The decline in tax credit is set to begin the first of next year. That suggests any project planned has been scheduled to take advantage of the credits this year. First quarter results and forward guidance may prove very interesting.

  21. This comment is on the disclaimer.

    My problem with “political posts” is two-fold.

    First, the information value of yet another post ranting about some politician we don’t like is as low as it goes. How much do you add to the conversation by repeating everything thats already been said?

    For instance: Warren is disingenuous, she lied about her minority status, and her proposed policies are going to break the bank. There. I’ve just said everything that can be said, and I doubt you can say much more (not that it will stop you – it is the Silly Season after all).

    Second: if she’s lying, the same can be said about every other candidate running for President at this time regardless of party affiliation. Focusing only on the lies of those we hate is in itself disingenuous.

    So I consider a political rant here simply taking up space that could be devoted to actual facts and information on a vital topic of this generation. I have plenty of sources I can go to for partisan cheerleading. Not so many for in-depth discussions climate matters that contain heft and gravitas.

        • Joel
          the last time I stumbled on a pay phone, there was a pile of rumpled clothes and a pair of glasses on the floor. It looked like whoever used it last left in a hurry.

          • The funniest (in a dark humor way) take on the Super-hero changing in the phonebooth archtype was a promo for one of the Deadpool movies. There’s a crime in progress, Deadpool goes into a phonebooth to change into his super-hero outfit and while he’s struggling to change in the cramped booth the crime victim is shot and killed.

    • Bill, you do realize nobody is forcing you to read the political post. David made it abundantly clear that the post would be political in nature from the outset. You could have simply not read the post and spent your time elsewhere. instead, here you are, ranting about the political nature of the post that you could have simply ignored. I’d tell you to take your concern trolling to people who care, but honestly nobody really cares about your concern trolling.

    • Bill P.

      For instance: Warren is disingenuous, she lied about her minority status, and her proposed policies are going to break the bank. There. I’ve just said everything that can be said, and I doubt you can say much more (not that it will stop you – it is the Silly Season after all).

      You left out her proposed “wealth tax”. The “rich” would have to pay a tax on there net worth.
      (With “rich” being defined as those whose net worth is greater than her $10+ million net worth.)

  22. “And my Green Marshall Plan would directly assist countries abroad to buy American-made clean energy products, further expanding markets for green manufacturing.”

    I guess she has no understanding of why American goods do not sell in other countries and what their trade strategies are in contrast to our traditional non-strategy.

  23. Good work, David, you revealed the bargain part of her plans. Her Green Marshall Plan only costs 2 trillion dollars, whereas her Medicare For Everyone costs 52 trillion dollars. I’m a little surprised it isn’t against the law to falsify your minority heritage to get a job that is at least partially federally funded. Maybe I should try it?

  24. I’m so tired of those on the left preaching climate doom and calling us science deniers. Reality is not on their side because those on the right are not actually ignoring science. Truthfully, we all have bias and we all look for things to confirm what we already believe. This is true for everyone, except that those on the left use their bias in an attempt to create shackles on everyone. Except themselves, of course. Time is running out on the AGW scare with every year which passes. They can scream the sky is falling for so long before they blend in to the background noise of irrelevancy. They can only fudge the data for so long before it becomes even more blatant than it already is. These people have cashed in all their credibility in an attempt for global deception. People like Michael Mann will be remembered in history as the buffoons and liars they really are. I honestly feel sorry for their descendants who have to look back at their distant family in such shame.

  25. I read recently that China is increasing its exports of solar panels.
    So it is using (relatively) cheap energy, generated by coal, to produce solar panels that produce expense energy.
    This would appear to give Chinese industry an absolute advantage over foreign industry that produces its energy using solar panels, in much the same way that cheap foreign labor costs create an advantage over domestic high cost labor in the US. (Note that this only a single component in the economics of any industry).

  26. Dave you do not get Liberals or politicians.

    The problem is Warren is promising unicorns (an idea that will never work for engineering and economic reasons but sounds appealing to young people and gullible liberals) and promising to pay with for her fantasy idea, with unicorns.

    The hydrogen economy is another unicorn idea. The liberals do not understand it takes energy to make hydrogen and hydrogen is expensive and difficult to store and transport.

    Warren claims she is the only one who understands the climate change problem and what really needs to be done to solve it.

    Liberals believe the stuff they make up and the fake news (say PBS or CNN) just repeat, the talking points.

    Logic is not going to change Liberal minds. It has not so far.

    There will need to be cooling, a severe economic recession, or a sudden large natural disaster to get liberals to question their paradigm.

    • William wrote: “There will need to be cooling, a severe economic recession, or a sudden large natural disaster to get liberals to question their paradigm.”

      Severe economic recession = depression. Does 8 years of muddling along with an Obamanomics chronic recession that should have last 18 months at most count?

      Plus, I’d prefer the patient (that be us) not to die in order to reveal that the b’witch doctor was wrong in her Rx.

      • I agree Warren is a dangerous candidate appealing to the gullible, uniformed, and those who want more government money.

        What if your only news source is CNN, PBS, and Saturday night live?

        CAWG (which does not exist, we caused less than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2) is the idea that is helping sell the recycled ‘out of box solutions’ that are known unicorn ideas.

        Warren claims she is only one that can think big enough to spend a gazillion dollars on stuff that does not work to fight climate change.

        I do not remember past Democrat candidates who have gone all in promising to tax the rich …

        …. Which will of course will cause the rich to move their fortunates outside of the US and to spend all that imaginary infinite tax money…

        … on stuff people want such as the elimination of student debt for 42 million people, free or low cost childcare, and so on.

        Signature Policy: Warren wants to address American inequality with a wealth tax, imposed annually on “ultra-millionaires,” to pay for benefits, including universal free or low-cost childcare, for “yacht-less Americans.” Fortunes greater than $50 million would be taxed at 2 percent. Billionaires would pay 3 percent. The proposal has greater than 60 percent support and would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

        William: The super wealth tax is 3 percent per year of fortunate, not income.

        RS Coverage: Elizabeth Warren Wants to Wipe Out Student Debt for 42 Million Americans



        • Signature Policy: Warren wants to address American inequality with a wealth tax, imposed annually on “ultra-millionaires,” to pay for benefits, including universal free or low-cost childcare, for “yacht-less Americans.”

          Perhaps it would be instructive to look to history for what happened when yachts were taxed. When George H.W. Bush broke his read my lips pledge to pass the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, it imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles – Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. But what actually happened was a different story.

          Back then, Congress told us that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft and jewelry would raise $31 million in revenue a year. Instead, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing and 1,470 in the aircraft industry, in addition to the thousands destroyed in the yacht industry. Those job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. The net effect of the luxury tax was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means Congress’ projection was off by $38.6 million. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $159.6 million.

          Congress repealed the luxury tax in 1993 after realizing it was a job killer and raised little net revenue. Why did congressional dreams of greater revenues turn into a nightmare? Kennedy, Mitchell and their congressional colleagues simply assumed that the rich would act the same after the imposition of the luxury tax as they did before and that the only difference would be more money in the government’s coffers. Like most politicians then and now, they had what economists call a zero-elasticity vision of the world, a fancy way of saying they believed that people do not respond to price changes. People always respond to price changes. The only debatable issue is how much and over what period.

          h/t to Walter E. Williams from whom most of the above text was borrowed.

  27. What she proposes is communism, plain and simple.
    The state that runs the economy. What could possibly go wrong…

  28. Let’s see now: green energy, union jobs, not-Trump, and Marshall Plan

    Who needs a human candidate when you can use an algorithm with a few key advocacy words instead for a simulated liberal President with a Plan.

    (Just to be clear you can’t be a Democrat certified by the Party without invoking some new Marshall Pan for spending on something. Europeans and UN staff also sling those plans around but there is much competition for your “leveraged” tax dollars.)

  29. What I don’t understand is the need for government to “redistribute” the wealth. They’ll only rake off 50% and become the new rich.

    Why not pass a law that billionaires have to establish a lottery, raffle, drawing, or something to distribute 50% of their income each year directly to people poorer than them. Cut out the government entirely! For those who want to participate the IRS could forward a person’s income to the lottery, etc. and then a weighted number of tickets would be purchased. Zero income gets 100 tickets and millionaires get one ticket.

  30. Wind and solar produce much less per job (1/4 to 1/23) but the energy produced is effectively useless for powering customer energy needs.
    Not really comparable.

  31. She is campaigning to become the federal government’s CEO. I want to know what her plan is for the federal government to pay back all of its debts. What is her plan for the USA to stop the huge annual trade deficits and instead replace them with huge trade surpluses. How does she expect us to compete with countries like China which have such low costs of labor? I want to know how she expects to improve the economy for working class Americans.

    The constitution limits the powers of the federal government and all powers not given to the federal government are given to the states. The federal government does not have the power to provide or enforce a national health care system. Such would be totally unconstitutional. The states can provide a health care system but not the federal government.

  32. I Wish we had a Trump clone in Australia. He could withdraw from Paris and save us the billions it is costing us to do what we are doing. Our energy costs are through the roof at least three times those of the US.

  33. In order to not disparage the First People’s of the eventually named American continent , can we all agree to just call her Paleface

  34. Left wing groups continually demonstrate their total lack of economics 101 understanding by pushing the line of creating better jobs producing RE.

    Whilst their vision is for a world where all people work to produce “politically correct” energy, economics 101 insists that energy production must contain the fewest overheads including workers and it must be as cheap and reliable as possible. This is because it is the use of the energy that is important for the production of wealth. Economics 101 knows that all workers must be using the energy to produce goods and services at a competitive price and that any worker that moves from producing goods and services to producing energy constitutes a loss to overall loss to GDP.

    What is very telling in the left wing propaganda push to sell RE as a job creation mechanism is that they never talk about creating any jobs that use their RE to produce goods and services. Obviously even they know that RE has no productive value, which makes their own agenda seem even more sinister.

      • In the short term, no. as they can successfully use OPM to get votes and attain office and power. Longer term, however, and failure to understand economics can result in running out of OPM. OP tend to want to hold on to as much of their M as they can, and will modify their actions in order to do so. Case in point the 1990 Luxury tax that G.H.W. Bush signed off on to break his read my lips pledge. It was supposed to bring in $31 million in revenue a year, instead it cost thousands of jobs and resulted in $7.6 million loss in just the first year alone (in other words instead of a +31 million it was a -38.6 million). It was such a dismal failure that it was quickly repealed just 3 years later.

  35. Good Union Jobs …… translates to built in money laundering scheme where US tax subsidy dollars are funded to Unions who in turn donate a portion to Fauxcahantas campaign funds.

    This is the same shists that Obama did with his so called Stimulus.

    • Poster child of Fed funds to unions: CA high-speed train to nowhere.

      Billions in funding still flow to this white elephant; when completed, it’ll be a semi-high-speed train from Modesto to Bakersfield. Besides wondering how many want to take a train from Modesto to Bakersfield, diligent observers may have noticed CA has not even finished the eminent domaine process to complete the track right-of-way.

      Other diligent observers may ask why CA spends money on trains as opposed to forest management. One presumes the metropolitan areas of San Francisco & Silicon Valley, Sacramento, LA, and San Diego are safe from blackouts, unlike other third-world areas.

  36. That first graph by Lomborg is wrong. Pull out of Paris or stay in, the climate will disregard it completely and carry on as normal.

          • Even if the models where 100% correct, it would be a futile and stupid gesture without China, India, and the developing world also implementing draconian cuts to their emissions (and, thusly their usage of reliable energy) rather than having license to continue increasing their emissions until some future date (that when it comes, they’ll ignore)

    • Bimbo or not, she’s making $174,000 per year, which most likely is a heck of a lot more than you make.

      • Karl
        It isn’t news that some bimbos make a lot of money. The important question is, “Is she ethical and smart?’

        An old taunt to Mensans is, “If you are so smart, how come you’re not rich?” The Mensan reply is, “Because being smart I realize there are things in life that are more important than money.” I would never run a scam like the “Clinton Foundation.”

        • That’s the salary she’s paid as a Senator. Having a salary doesn’t require one to actually earn that salary. At least in the business world, if a salaried worker fails to earn their keep, they can be fired. In elected government, she doesn’t have to do anything except get people to vote for her.

      • Aha! So, Karl worships people who have lots of cash in their piggies, whether it is earned or unearned income. Money is power. Power is what Karl worships.

        That says everything I need to know about Karl.

      • Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”
        Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
        Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
        Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
        Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

  37. “Why do journalists, environmentalists and liberals (redundant, I know) confuse energy production with jobs programs? The only way an economy can successfully grow in a healthy, robust manner is through increasing productivity.”

    Because in modern Progressivism, the real work is always up to someone else to sacrifice, do and pay for.

    Try this little social experiment: The next time you’re conversing with one of these green activists, ask if they see themselves as being employed in manufacturing or installing solar panels, windmills, or insulation at any time in their future.

    I’m willing to bet that 99% of the responses you get will be “No”.

  38. “Fauxcahontas is truly a “stupid and futile gesture”…”

    Actually, she perpetuated a FRAUD and was never held accountable.

  39. OK Boomer

    That is the en-vogue retort from the young and dumb. Dumb from their 12-16 years of leftist indoctrination which has supplanted “feelings” for; logic, reasoning, deduction, basic intelligence, and scholarship.

  40. Attributed to a rational person, this would have to be Fake News. Alas!: “Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy,” said a Thursday statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).


  41. I would LOVE for the fake injun to be the democrat nominee! Though the election results of a Trump vrs Warren election would not rival Reagan’s 49 nine state landslide over Mondale, the results would certainly be the most one sided since then. The reactions to such a landslide for Trump would be the best entertainment imaginable.

    Back in the 80’s I was stationed at Ft. Devens, MA for 5 1/2 years. This Hoosier gave up trying to understand the politics of Massachusetts even way back then when fat head Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy was perpetually being reelected. I remember well being a color guard on the four man team to present the colors at a Bruins hockey game at the old Boston Gardens on Veterans day and hearing some of the uncouth and disrespectful BS coming from a few in the crowd in their thick Boston accent as we marched out on the ice. We drilled a lot for that event because performing the marching maneuvers required on ice while wearing jump boots is not exactly an easy thing to do. Went off without a hitch and we watched the game from the best box seats in the house.

    • I grew up in Western Connecticut… To this day, there are two accents that annoy the schist out of me: 1) Boston and 2) New York City.

      • When we were leaving the hockey game I rode the elevator down get to the place where we had parked without having to pass through the crowds existing the garden. We used fully functional M-14s in pristine condition for our ceremonial rifles. Because they were fully functional weapons we also carried our M 1911A1 side arms loaded for security as protection from having the rifles stolen. I had the rifle slinged and the sidearm in it’s holster. I remember there was a woman with her young son in that small elevator with me and she was scrunched back in the corner clutching her kid to her as if she was afraid one of those weapons would jump out and kill her. The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

  42. Lot’s of jobs is not the issue – in fact it is misleading entirely. There were plenty of jobs in the middle ages. I remember it well. Because of the lack of fossil fueled tractors we had to use oxen to plough the fields. Strangely enough, it took ages for one man oxen team to plough the field so we had to enlist half the population. Everybody was busy with their new jobs. Oh happy days!

    • Yep! The Peasants and Serfs had jobs but still lived miserable short lives and died in great numbers. Sounds exactly like what the likes of Warren wants to return to.

  43. “Why do journalists, environmentalists and liberals (redundant, I know) confuse energy production with jobs programs? ”

    You should probably use “fake” in front of environmentalist. People like Jim Steele and our own Mr Watts have probably planted more trees and rehabilitated more land than thousands of these self righteous “fake” environmentalists who think caring about the environment means telling other people how to live.

    PS. My favorite line to the fakes is to compare water, gas & electric comsumption. I have 25+ years of data from my home and the fakes are not even close. I just make sure I do things as smart as I can to save money and I can do a ROI calculation in a heartbeat.

  44. David, your analysis leaves out one important factor — not all energy is equal.

    When petroleum is burned in a car, only about 20% of the chemical energy is used to actually propel the car. For electric cars, about 60% of the electrical energy is used to propel the vehicle. This is reflected in the “MPGe” of electric cars, which is about about 3x better than gas cars.

    Similary, for electric generation, 100% of solar and wind are delivered as electricity. But only about 30% of chemical energy from fossil fuels are delivered as electricity. Once again, there is a 3x factor for the usefulness advantage of wind/solar vs oil/gas/coal

    So for transportation and electric generation (the vast majority of oil/gas/coal use), the ‘productivity’ for solar and wind should be multiplied by 3 to be on equal footing for useful, delivered energy. This suddenly makes wind exactly competitive with oil/gas/coal.

    • If anyone else bothers to read your late post, you are going to catch a lot of flack.

      First the battery in an EV does not produce energy. It’s merely a storage device. The energy is produced in a power plant, and you suffer inefficiencies in production, transmission losses, and conversion losses before you get that energy to your battery.

      Secondly, 100% of solar and wind delivered as energy? LOL. You have energy losses throughout both systems. The best solar cells today have less than 25% efficiency. Then that output suffers losses in transmission and the dc to ac converters.

      Most wind turbines can extract a maximum of about half the energy in the wind, but the average output is about a quarter of that. Then you get all the electrical losses involved in transmission and converters.

      But the real problem is that neither wind nor solar are reliable. And for mobility, batteries must be used, which are more limiting than fossil fuels.

      The only way wind and solar will ever become competitive with oil is for the price of oil to rise significantly.

      • jtom, I think you are missing that the energy units being used, MTOE, are units of energy available to use.

        “The best solar cells today have less than 25% efficiency.”
        That is a different issue. 1 MTOE of solar energy as listed in the table in the top post is already in the form electricity delivered to the grid. Yes, we needed 4+ MTOE of radiant energy into the solar panels, but since we are not paying for sunshine, that is immaterial.

        “Most wind turbines can extract a maximum of about half the energy in the wind”
        Same argument. 1 MTOE of wind energy is already electricity delivered to the grid. Yes, we needed 2+ MTOE of kinetic energy into the turbines, but since we are not paying for wind, that is immaterial.

        “… and you suffer inefficiencies in production, transmission losses, and conversion losses before you get that energy to your battery.”
        This part is the same for ALL sources of electricity (and all uses of electricity). You have to get the energy from the source to the customer. Wind generates energy directly as electricity; fossil fuels have the inefficient thermal conversion first. So 1 MTOE of fossil fuels is only ~ 1/3 MTOE electricity. (Also, there are inefficiencies involved with fossil fuels — energy to drill
        and spills and evaporation and trucks to bring the gasoline to gas stations.)

        “But the real problem is that neither wind nor solar are reliable. And for mobility, batteries must be used, which are more limiting than fossil fuels.”
        Yes. I agree 100%. These issues do need to to be before out before wind and solar can become take over from fossil fuels.

        • Yes, we needed 4+ MTOE of radiant energy into the solar panels, but since we are not paying for sunshine, that is immaterial.

          And we’re not paying for coal or oil (when it’s in the ground) either, so that’s immaterial too. The cost is in taking that “free” stuff (oil, coal, sunshine, wind, water, uranium, etc) and transforming it into useful energy to heat our homes, manufacture our goods, power our transportation, etc. And on that score, Solar and Wind are much more expensive than the fossil fuels (in part because Solar and wind are not very energy dense, it takes a lot of solar panels and wind mills to produce the same energy that’s packed in the smaller fossil fuel packages. and those panels and mills in turn use up a lot of land that could be better used for other purposes, not to mention the damage they do to wildlife, such as birds).

          • John, my point here is about energy and the analysis in the original post about productivity — as defined by energy output per job.

            1 ton of oil equivalent (1 TOE) is a unit of energy — approximately 42 gigajoules or 11,630 kilowatt-hours. When fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, you need ~ 3 TOE of chemical energy to get 1 TOE of electrical energy. This means the productivity figure should be cut by ~ 1/3 when fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. Such a cut is not needed for nuclear or hydroelectric or wind or solar because they are producing their 1 TOE of energy directly as electricity.

            There is a similar cut when fossil fuels are used for internal combustion engines.

            This makes the true productivity — energy delivery per industry job — basically the same for wind as for fossil fuels.

    • True… But that’s more or less offset by capacity factor.

      It’s almost impossible to directly compare oil to wind & solar… But natural gas still comes out way ahead when you calculate it as MWh delivered.

    • “When petroleum is burned in a car, only about 20% of the chemical energy is used to actually propel the car.”

      That claim is often made, but I can’t find its source. In response to a commenter on another site who made that claim, I wrote:

      Your CleanTechnica source at https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buster-efficiency/ links its claim to the site of the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (I suspect it isn’t an unbiased source, based on its name and affiliation.) When I clicked on ITS link to the source of its claim, I got to this site, fuel economy.gov, at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/... wherein I found (note the asterisk):

      Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

      But there is no asterisked footnote at the bottom of that page that gives a source for that claim. I clicked on all five links at the bottom of that page and found no source for that claim either. Its figures are less than 2/3 of Wikipedia’s estimate [“today’s average of 25-30%”—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-piston_engine], which, IIRC, in turn is based on an average of the current fleet of ICEs, which has an average age of 11 years. Current advanced ICE cars like Toyota’s with its just-out new engine get over 40 mpg, and Mazda’s forthcoming SkyActiv-x will get over 45 mpg (its compression ratio is 15:1). Mazda claims almost 50% fuel efficiency, IIRC. And it is working on a follow-on engine, the SkyActiv-3.

      • Roger,

        Engine efficiency is limited theoretically by thermodynamics and limited further by engineering. If an amazing new engine is pushing 50% efficiency, why would you be surprised that run-of-the-mill efficiencies are half that?

        Also, whatever the engine efficiency:
        1) the transmission and drive train further sap efficiency
        2) the top efficiency is only for optimal speed and load.
        3) braking throws away energy, which cuts into actual performance.

    • “100% of solar and wind are delivered as electricity”

      1) % of what?
      2) but then don’t bother answering 1), it cannot be relevant

      Sun rays are free. Or renewable. Renewable is synonym for free. (All other uses of that word are fundamental a hoax, a con, a fraud.)

      It doesn’t matter which amount of sun rays over an area you convert; what does matter is the cost of recovering a final amount of electric energy in some format (f Hz t V format or CC t V format).

  45. Every time I think of Elizabeth as President, all I can think of, is a class of third grade grammar school children left in charge of the reactor controls of a nuclear electric power plant

      • Next thing you’ll be telling me is you think of Nancy Pelosi as “the vampiric one” and Andrew “Fredo” Cuomo as the “lesser Cuomo”.

          • My bad, I meant Chris “Fredo” Cuomo is the lesser Cuomo . Though they both seem to be in a race to be the Fredo of that family.

          • I knew which one you meant… But the other brother has actually betrayed people a lot more than Chris. Fredo wasn’t just weak, he also betrayed the family. Maybe, they’re both Fredo?

  46. ” ‘Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100.’ (Bjorn Lomborg)”


    And how large are the error bars again?

Comments are closed.