COP21, WORLD RENEWABLE ENERGY AND WORLD TRADE

Comment

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...