COP21, WORLD RENEWABLE ENERGY AND WORLD TRADE

The purpose of this article is to present major topics relevant to COP21. Independent articles represent most of the topics. The independent articles should be read in sequence.

 

The entire article and the independent articles are updated/revised as new information becomes available. In that manner, the articles continue as living, real-time documents, instead of remaining a dated, stationary slice of time, a major benefit for the readership made possible by Internet publishing. This procedure is similar to revising the slides of a PowerPoint presentation.

 

Topic 1, COP21/IPCC CO2 Emission Reduction Goals and Required Annual Capital Costs, is based on the IPCC estimates of world CO2eq emission reductions by 2030 to achieve 2.0 C or 1.5 C above pre-industrial by 2100. The article includes three methods of estimating the capital costs required to implement the CO2eq reductions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-ipcc-co2-emission...

Topic 2, COP21, Flawed Trade Agreements, US Competitiveness and World Trade, describes the major the factors contributing to the growth of US annual trade deficits and the US becoming the largest debtor nation in the world, by far.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-flawed-trade-agre...

Topic 3, The US Leaving COP21, a Rational Decision, describes in detail why the US needs to renegotiate COP21, as it otherwise would be too great a burden on the US economy RELATIVE to Europe, Japan and China, all of which already have big trade surpluses with the US, and already hold trillions of dollars of US assets on which they earn hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-us-leaving-cop21-a-...

 

Topic 4, US COP21 Pledge; CO2eq Emissions 26 to 28 Percent Below 2005 Levels by 2025. As part of COP21, the US offered* a pledge to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The emission reduction would be at a 14% more rapid rate during the 2015 - 2025 period, than during the 2005 - 2015 period, which was made easier, because it benefitted from the reduced burning of coal and increased burning of low-cost natural gas and generous subsidies that are scheduled to decrease in future years.

 

* Obama did not submit the COP21 agreement to the US Congress for ratification. Thus, COP21 is not a US treaty obligation. Many other nations also have not ratified COP21, including Russia, Turkey, etc.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/us-cop21-pledge-co2eq-e...

 

Topic 5, Potential Sources of Electricity in 2050 and Capital Costs, describes the build-outs of nuclear, wind and solar required by 2050 to make progress towards the IPCC temperature goals of 2.0 C above pre-industrial by 2100 or 1.5 C above pre-industrial by 2100. Estimates of world and US electricity generation are shown.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/potential-sources-of-el...

 

Topic 6, Summary of World CO2eq Emissions, All Sources and Energy Related, describes the steadily increasing quantities of CO2eq emissions since COP1 in Tokyo in 1990.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-...

 

Topic 7, The World Making Almost No Progress Towards Renewable Energy, describes the world has made very little progress towards renewable energy during the past 10 years. The primary energy of fossil sources has remained about 78% of total primary energy. That 78% cannot be reduced to required levels to achieve temperature goals without at least a 5-fold increase in capital investments in RE systems.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-world-making-almost...

 

Topic 8, World Coal Consumption and Particulate Air Pollution, describes China and India, the major users of coal, burn that coal in low-efficiency plants with poor air pollution control systems. As a result both have severe air pollution problems, especially in urban areas. That air pollution has affected the world's weather patterns and the soot has accelerated the melting of snow and ice.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-coal-consumption-...

 

Topic 9, Historic Temperatures of the Past 420,000 Years, describes the world has experienced several glaciation and melting periods during the past 420,000 years. The high temperature of each melting was up to 3 C above average, the low temperature of each glaciation was up to 10 C below average. It appears the world, surrounded by cold outer space, more easily cools down than warms up, depending on forcing factors.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/historic-temperatures-o...

 

Topic 10. Energy Efficiency Better For CO2 Emission Reduction Than Wind and Solar

 

It would be much more cost-effective to concentrate on:

 

- Increasing the energy efficiency of existing buildings by requiring “zero-net-energy”, and “energy-surplus” of all NEW buildings. A “zero-net-energy” building would have very low requirements for heating, cooling and electricity. It would be grid-connected, have heat pumps and a PV solar system on its roof to offset the building energy requirements. An “energy-surplus” building would be similar, but the PV solar system capacity would be greater to offset the building energy requirements and enable charging electric vehicles.

 

- Increasing the mileage of the traditional vehicle population and increase the use of electric and hybrid vehicles. The CO2 intensity, lb CO2/kWh, of the US grid would need to be significantly reduced by means of increased build-outs of low-CO2 energy sources, such as nuclear, hydro, wind and solar, to ensure source-to-wheel CO2 emissions would be minimal.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-grid-conn...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-energy-ef...

 

 These measures would reduce the energy bills of households and businesses, and likely would reduce world CO2 emissions by at least 50%, with:

 

- Minimal government regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges.

- Minimal capital cost.

- Near-zero visual and other adverse impacts. 

 

Topic 11 describes two items of interest listed below:

 

a) IPCC Climate Models Overestimating Global Warming: A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data explains in detail the IPCC climate models significantly overestimate lower troposphere and surface temperatures by about a factor of 2. See pages 14 and 15 of first URL. The second URL has many interesting comments. 

 

It appears the IPCC and UNEP are committed to the various computer models, despite their many flaws. The IPCC and UNEP have the aid of media megaphones that often follow/reinforce government policies. As a result: 

 

- Evidence and analyses at variance with IPCC and UNEP pronouncements and temperature-increase predictions are directly, or via surrogates, indirectly dismissed as not accurate, or not applicable, etc.

- A re-examination of various premises regarding the CO2 contribution to global warming is long overdue.

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ffp-glo...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/why-climate-models-run-hot/

 

- The 100% RE folks welcome farcical CO2 reduction solutions such as Jacobson's "Plan" which relies on wind, solar and hydro for 100% of all primary energy used by the world economy by 2050. His study was presented at COP21, and received much acclaim from 100% RE folks. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/review-of-the-100-re-by...

 

CO2 is just one of many temperature-forcing functions. Continued use of fossil fuels would increase the atmospheric CO2. Traditional CO2 sinks, primarily the oceans, might become saturated. At a result, the current 0.12 C/decade temperature increase might increase, if all other temperature-forcing functions remain unchanged. The IPCC, UNEP, and 100% RE folks use CO2 as a convenient scapegoat regarding global warming, because it is easier to explain to lay people.

 

b) Satellite Temperature Measurements: Measured temperatures of the lower troposphere, using various methods, show increases of about 0.12 C/decade. By extrapolation, this would amount to an additional increase of about 1.0 C from 2017 to 2100, if the same rate continued. See URL. That is a much smaller increase than predicted by the IPCC and UNEP computer models.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global/temperatures/

 

The IPCC and UNEP computer model results are shown in below table. They are about 3 to 3.5 times the current 0.12 C/decade; the computer models are running “hot”.

 

Temperature increase by 2017 - 2100

 Base CO2eq

 Period

 Delta T/decade

 

MMt

Year

C

4.3 - 1.0 = 3.3

 64.7

 83

 0.40

3.7 - 1.0 = 2.7

 59.5

83

 0.33   

 

 

Views: 1191

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Gary Campbell on May 31, 2017 at 10:22am

America has been blessed in many ways, not the least of which is our massive reserves of traditional sources of energy. Japan, Germany, Denmark and others have not been so lucky and have no choice but to charge headfirst into all kinds of energy alternatives. America has the luxury of thinking before we act. Let's take the time to take actions based on science, not desperation, gut-feel and sales pitches.

Among renewable sources wind is the least promising. It uses a resource we can't control to move massive blades through the air. To improve the efficiency of a wind generator requires massive improvements in the mechanical process of converting mechanical motion into electricity. Very little of wind's growth comes from such technological advances. Instead, the number of turbines increases, the height of the towers increases and the length of the blades increases.

Solar is different. The greatest advances in solar efficiency come from electronic improvement, not mechanical improvements. It's like comparing the pace of improvements to computers to improvements in adding machines.

If America would approach energy from a scientific rather than a political perspective, we would see that pouring money into wind energy makes wind jockeys and politicians wealthy but is a terrible waste of our resources.

Comment by Barry @ SaveOurSeaShore on May 31, 2017 at 8:15am

ask yourself...what did one of the most well know Global Warming Advocate  get for his efforts? Al gore made millions. This is about control. If you truly thought it was the end of the world would you pocket millions, fly around in jets, live in a huge house or use those millions to build as many turbines and solar panels as possible. 

This is about control....the people spout the loudest get the control, they get the trips to Paris, they get the funding, they get Billionaire Best Friends. 

Warren Buffet and various billionaires across the world want that control.

Comment by Eskutassis on May 30, 2017 at 11:06pm
There is no possible way they are going to be putting the offshore wind turbines off the coast of Mass. It has already been denied once. Those people are the ULTIMATE NIMBYs. Remember Teddy kept the turbines off the shore of Cape Cod and the people of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard with their multimillion dollar houses are going to keep it out of those two sounds. The people on Block Island, where they already have a small number of turbines, are already complaining and those turbines have been fraught with problems since startup. I believe when these people begin to see the damage done to the environment and the higher electricity bills, they will revolt. I lived on the south shore of Mass and I know those people.
Comment by Willem Post on May 30, 2017 at 7:13pm

Eskutassis,

European offshore wind industries are licking their chops to put up expensive offshore wind turbine plants off the coast of New England.

MASSACHUSETTS passing a law to install gigawatts of wind turbines is right up their alley.

It takes huge sea-going tugs, and sea-going cranes and other specialized machinery to assemble those 600 ft tall wind wind turbines, and they have perfected that equipment and the US does not even have it.

Those companies will be making the big bucks, and the Wall Street financiers will manage the tax shelters for the international multi-millionaires.

And New Englanders get to pay for the outrageously high cost electricity.

Just another way for Europe, Japan and others to hamstring the New England economy into a higher cost structures and thus make it less competitive, all under the false flag of fighting GW and saving the world.

Read this article about the Rhode Island wind turbine folly.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-very-expensive-offsho...

Comment by Barry @ SaveOurSeaShore on May 30, 2017 at 3:27pm

This is about money under the guise of doing something "good". Investment Banks and people like Warren Buffet make billions off things like wind turbines. I have a lawyer friend who has made millions off renewable projects...he just bought the largest house in town. 

Investment banks can depreciate a wind energy project against their obscene profits...and then sell the fully depreciated project to another bank...who again depreciates the project against their profit...there is a reason Goldman Sachs pays little taxes. Warren Buffet owns electric companies that get to raise rates...because any wind or solar projects are a reason to raise rates.

Fracked Natural Gas power....is some of the cheapest power generated....so why doesn't your electric bill go down...Guess?

Comment by Eskutassis on May 30, 2017 at 3:19pm

This article pretty well sums it up. The World is counting on the US to bail them out of their lunatic socialist predicaments by making us feel guilty about being the World's Largest and Best economy. They want to punish us for the illusion that we are the ones that have "ruined" the world. We were WAY ahead of them in cleaning up our excesses of the mid-century as far as pollution and emissions were concerned. We still are.

The qualifying idea is that we have to keep the temperature from rising 2 degrees C and we have already gone up 1.1 degree. The truth is, and this article spells it out, warmer climates with higher CO2 levels are better for the population than the alternative. We would be hard pressed to have to abandon all our properties north of the Gulf States if there was another Ice Age. It is hard to live under a mile of ice. As it is, crops are more abundant, renewable forests are flourishing and population growth is down as remote populations become more industrial.

The Trillions of dollars spent to chase the feckless dreams of "renewable" energy, a policy that primarily takes money from the wealthiest nation - US - and redistributes it to the world, would be better spent finding ways to take advantage of the better environment we will have because of warming and sufficient CO2 levels. Better crop strategy, Better fuel strategy, Increases in nuclear power, A continuation of our current environmental policy to keep us clean, Shoreline improvements where needed, Elimination of the UN IPCC and a change in focus for NOAA and NASA are all needed. 

Economics is the "E" word we need to heed, not Environment. Science should be followed, not economic driven computer models.  

Comment by Willem Post on May 30, 2017 at 4:33am

Thinklike,

I like your comments and agree.

It is all about the subsidies, and the social activism to kill capitalism, and sucking the US into COP-21 to further hamstring it. Obama, ex-community organizer, drank the Kool-Aid of the activist mantras, as did Bill Clinton.

I made some changes to my article, so I suggest you re read it again.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on May 30, 2017 at 4:22am

EDITORIALS
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

2/10/2015
FacebookLinkedInPrintTwitterShare Reprints
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-t...

Comment by Willem Post on May 29, 2017 at 8:56pm
Thinklike,

Europe, Japan and others want to hold on to and control the highly profitable value chain of the technologies, trained personnel and facilities, and send sub-assembles to the US and others for assembling into cars, the grunt work.

They want to keep the US in hamstrung mode, with chronic trade and budget deficits, and WTO rules. It is somewhat similar the US and NATO are doing to Russia.
Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on May 29, 2017 at 3:41pm

Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmi...

First Prize

NE Book Festival

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT (excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?"  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2018   Created by Eben Thurston.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service