We look back with bewilderment at the ritual sacrifice of animals by our ancestors. Whether it was the Celtic people’s sacrifice of livestock to appease pissed-off deities or the Ancient Romans’ slaughter of oxen so that Jupiter might be more sparing with his stormy weather, it was all a bit mad. We would never be so superstitious, we tell ourselves. I’m not sure that’s true. Consider the proposed slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cattle in Europe in the holy name of Net Zero. This is the return of pagan lunacy, surely.
Irish farmers are under pressure to ‘cull up to 200,000 cows’ in order that Ireland might meet its ‘climate goals’, reported the Financial Times at the weekend. The Irish government is considering proposals to bump off that amount of cattle over the next three years to help it achieve a 25 per cent reduction in its agricultural emissions. Cows produce methane, you see, and methane is bad. It’s a greenhouse gas. Farming accounts for 40 per cent of Ireland’s greenhouse-gas emissions, so it has become a natural target for the Net Zero zealots. Every EU member state is under pressure to make strides towards Net Zero, and if that entails the sacrifice of livestock, so be it. Save the planet, slaughter the cows.
It’s so superstitious. A ‘mooted cow massacre’ to try to offset the angry climatic conditions apparently caused by man? If someone can explain how this is any different to an ancient people’s ritualistic killing of a poor bull in a desperate bid to placate the weather gods, I’d be most grateful. In fact, if anything, the proposed cow-culling in Ireland is worse than the paganistic antics of our ill-educated forebears. At least they were wise enough to offer up only one or two beasts to the gods of thunder – the neo-pagans of the Net Zero cult are offering up whole herds to try to assuage the heatwaves and floods they think furious Mother Earth has in store for us.
And they seem to care little for the consequences of their heathen carbon-offsetting. Irish farmers are seriously worried for their livelihoods. The dairy industry is worth €13 billion a year to the Irish economy. It provides 54,000 jobs. It brought in a staggering €6.8 billion in exports in 2022 alone. What will become of all this fruitful work if cow slaughter in the name of Net Zero takes off? We’re portrayed as ‘climate killers’, complains one Irish farmer. Indeed, eco-activists marched in Dublin with banners saying ‘Meat + dairy = climate crisis’ – a perfect snapshot of out how out-of-touch the urban elites are, who probably never give a second thought to the question of who produced the luscious cream that appears atop the €20 pancakes they scoff for Sunday brunch in a hip Dublin eatery.
The other likely consequence of Ireland’s ‘mooted cow massacre’ would be more global emissions. Ireland’s brilliant dairy farmers supply 130 markets around the world. Where will those nations source the milk, butter and cheese they need if not from the Irish Republic? Probably from countries ‘with worse green credentials than Ireland’, Irish farmers say. They’re right. Forty-three per cent of Ireland’s beef goes to the UK. Remember that next time you’re tucking into a delicious, moist burger: it was probably made by one of those ‘climate killers’ across the Irish Sea. Where will Brits get their beef if the Irish elite’s cow-killing frenzy really spins out of control? New Zealand? The air miles involved in such a long-distance meaty relationship would make the farting cows of our neighbouring nation seem perfectly eco-friendly in comparison.
So this is the double impact of the neo-paganism of Net Zero, of today’s irrational dread of weather that comes dressed in the garb of scientific revelation: we undermine domestic production while potentially increasing global emissions. It’s lose-lose. And it isn’t only in Ireland that anti-farming hysteria has taken hold. Dutch farmers have been protesting for four years over their government’s determination to slash nitrogen emissions in half by 2030, which could lead to the closure of 3,000 farms. That is, to fewer cows, and fewer jobs. This week, Australian farmers joined the growing workers’ revolt against the Net Zero ideology. They drove their tractors around the parliament in Victoria to protest a new ‘renewables’ policy that they believe will intrude on their land and limit their ability to farm.
Surely nothing better sums up the irrationalism of the 21st century’s eco-elites than their cavalier attitude to the rights and happiness of the people who make our food. Ritual sacrifice to mollify the heavens is once again all the rage among the rulers of Earth. Sacrifice not only of animals this time, but also of livelihoods and even liberty. Dairy farming, food production, pesticide-use, cheap flights, our right to drive – all are being offered up at the apologetic altar of Net Zero. ‘Forgive us our hubris’, cry the elites as they sacrifice, one by one, the things that make life good and tasty. It is time for a rational pushback, surely, against this modern paganism.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/17/the-return-of-animal-sacrifice/
**********************************************Governor Pritzker Vetos Illinois Nuclear Ban Repeal
In 1987, a provision of the Illinois Public Utilities Act banned the construction of any new nuclear power plant in the state until a permanent high level waste repository is approved without express permission via a statute by the General Assembly.
This bill artificially limits the future energy options of the state by taking a source that is currently an important source of baseload power to the state off the table for future development. Illinois currently has six nuclear power plants with 11 reactors between them. In 2021, 53.3 percent of the state’s power came from these 11 units.
Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed a bill, S.B. 0076 that would have removed the language in the Public Utilities Act that bans new nuclear plant construction. This updated language would instead allow for the construction of “Advanced” reactors, which include the AP1000 reactor which is the design of Plant Vogtle Unit 3 that recently came online in Georgia. This definition would also include new small modular reactor designs.
The bill passed both houses with supermajority votes, but has hit a road block at the Governor’s office. On August 11th, Governor J. B. Pritzker vetoed the bill.
The governor’s complaints with the bill center around the distinction between “advanced” and the initial language of “compact”. Pritzker has expressed an acceptance of small modular reactors, but appears to draw the line there.
Bill proponents, including sponsor State Senator Sue Rezin, were taken aback by the governor’s veto. “The governor’s veto of my bill was a complete shock to everyone involved. This was a heavily negotiated bill. On both sides of the aisle,” Sen. Rezin said.
Gov. Pritzker has been working very closely with anti-nuclear environmental groups during this process, punctuated by a letter from the Sierra Club Illinois Chapter and Illinois Environmental Council entreating the Governor to veto the bill.
The letter cites the expense of nuclear plants, the opinion that they would not solve grid capacity issues, outdated rules and regulations for nuclear, and the nuclear waste issue as its primary motivations.
The first two points, that of expense and of solving grid capacity issues are not decisions to be made at the level of a ban on a technology, they are decisions to be made at the utility level as a particular plant is proposed and it’s individual costs and benefits can be weighed. A blanket ban precludes that possibility. The letter also suggests that the interconnection of primarily wind, solar, and batter storage capacity from out of state will fill the state’s needs better than new nuclear plants would, a view that ignores the intermittency issues of wind and solar entirely. “We’re going to spend over $1 billion dollars in the next five years, building out, improving, and putting in new electric lines in Illinois to connect us to Iowa, Missouri and Indiana so that they can safely send more electricity without melting our grid,” said State Rep. Dan Caulkins about this preference for bringing in power from other states.
As far as regulations go, in the first place there are already incredibly stringent federal regulations around the oversight, regulation, and siting of nuclear plants. The state itself is also already in the position of regulating nuclear power plants. Illinois already operates the most nuclear power plants of any state in the country, so the implication that it is somehow ill-equiped to do so is an unreasonable one.
When it comes to the waste issue, although the ban was initially intended to be in place in the interim before a permanent geologic waste repository was established by the federal government, waste management at sites across the country is safe.
Overall, the Sierra Club and other groups have successfully lobbied the Governor to veto the bill over supermajority votes from the legislature with Rezin noting that, “This is a pattern of a governor that is bending to special interests.”
There is still the possibility of the bill being passed over the Governor’s veto, and Sen. Rezin has already filed the necessary paperwork for the bill to be brought up in the fall veto session.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2023/08/27/pritzker-vetos-nuclear/?omhide=true
**************************************************Will the rising cost of green energy cost US Democrats next year's elections?
A generational push to tackle climate change in New York is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.
Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their utility bill to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.
The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.
It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans.
“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.
Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.
Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.
New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.
But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.
Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.
“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.
Part of the problem is New York has been unable to meet its previous renewable targets, which DiNapoli’s office in a recent report attributed in part to permitting challenges and inconsistent contracting efforts.
New York got about 29 percent of its electricity from renewables in 2022, three-quarters of which came from large hydropower dams in upstate New York.
The costs of the state’s renewable energy mandates are being paid for almost solely by New York residents and businesses through their electric bills. With renewable developers asking for higher subsidies to deal with inflation, those costs are expected to increase while expected savings from the transition takes longer to materialize.
****************************************************
Australia: Who’s the Coalkeeper now? The renewables disaster rolls on...
‘Victoria joins NSW in saying no to “Coalkeeper,” ran the headline in Renew Economy in September 2021. ‘Coalkeeper’ was the disparaging name that Big Renewables and their political champions gave to a proposal to pay fossil fuel generators not just for the energy that they supplied but the critical backup they provided to highly subsidised renewables. Without that backup, Australians face blackouts and businesses face being pressured to load shed to help keep the lights on.
The plan was devised by the Energy Security Board (ESB) and backed by the then-federal Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor. The proposed mechanism was a capacity market to provide a stream of income to power companies that guarantee to provide energy which can backup renewables.
Capacity markets are commonplace in energy markets but the fact that the companies providing the backup were coal or gas-fired power stations infuriated the renewable-obsessed state governments of NSW and Victoria.
In September 2021 NSW Minister for Energy Matt Kean claimed there was no need for a capacity market or to ensure the continued operation of fossil-fuelled backup. In response to a call by the UN for wealthy countries to phase out coal by 2030, Kean said ending coal-fired generation by 2030 was entirely feasible. It was quite a boast given that NSW has the biggest coal-fired fleet in Australia, with more than 10GW of capacity. Kean put his faith in his legislated renewable energy plan – the biggest in the nation’s history – with five renewable energy zones to provide 12GW of renewable energy and 2GW of energy storage. He was also counting on the federally-backed Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro project. By offering generous contracts guaranteeing that the state would purchase energy, NSW received expressions of interest to produce 34 GW of energy in New England and 27 GW in the Central West Orana zone.
Victorian energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio followed Kean’s lead. She claimed she wasn’t opposed to a capacity mechanism provided there were ‘no payments to incumbent fossil fuels generators’. This is absurd given that fossil fuel generators are the only energy suppliers in Victoria capable of backing up a grid supplied by 95 per cent renewable energy – the Victorian target for 2035.
In December 2022, a headline in Renew Economy gloated ‘Coalkeeper killed off as Labor states embrace Matt Kean’s auction and underwriting plan’. ‘Coalkeeper is dead,’ wrote Queensland energy minister Mick de Brenni whose state owns more coal-fired power stations than any other entity in Australia and has committed to closing them all by 2035.
But it’s one thing to legislate targets. It’s another thing for them to deliver reliable power in sufficient quantity. Renew Economy reported the gloomy news this week. Just 188MW of new capacity was approved in July and 1.2GW this year. That’s less than half the amount needed to reach Labor’s target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 to fill the gap created by closing coal plants.
D’Ambrosio has been mugged by reality. She was forced to do a deal with AGL to keep open the Loy Yang A coal-fired power station which supplies a third of the state’s electricity until 2035. It was scheduled to close in 2048 but announced in February 2022 that it would close between 2040 and 2045. D’Ambrosio refused to disclose the cost of the deal. She also declined to disclose the cost of subsidies to keep open the Portland aluminium smelter – with power from Loy Yang – until 2035.
When AGL announced last September that the plant would close in 2035, federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said, ‘The reason that this is happening is because the cheapest form of energy in Australia and globally now is renewable energy.’ In reality, it is because renewable energy is the most heavily subsidised and fossil fuels the most heavily penalised. In addition, the energy shortages created by renewables create greater profits.
Each year, the CSIRO and AEMO work with the industry on the NextGen report which gives an updated cost estimate for large-scale electricity generation. It supposedly shows that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, however the report substantially overestimates the low capacity factor of renewables and underestimates the cost of additional transmission, battery and pumped hydro storage, land, and backup.
We can get an idea of the gap by comparing federal Labor’s estimate of the cost of its 2030 renewable electricity target of 82 per cent which it claimed was $78 billion before the last election whereas Australia’s former chief scientist Robin Batterham put it this year at $1.5 trillion.
NextGen also overestimates the cost of nuclear energy which it says is more expensive than wind and solar. Compare Ontario, which gets around almost 60 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, with South Australia which has the highest level of wind and solar in Australia. The cost of electricity in South Australia is more than three times higher than in Ontario.
In the NSW election in March, Kean suffered a 12 per cent swing against him in the primary vote and the government lost office so he didn’t have to face the embarrassment of negotiating with Origin to keep the Eraring power station open. It was originally slated to close in 2032 but last year its retirement was bought forward to 2025 because it was deemed unprofitable.
An independent report commissioned by the new NSW Labor government recommended the state keep Eraring open with the establishment of a mechanism to manage the orderly retirement of fossil fuel generators. That sounds like the establishment of a capacity market. Last year AEMO, which was managing the auctioning of Kean’s renewable energy contracts, warned that NSW would experience shortfalls in electricity if Eraring was retired in 2025.
Kean said in December 2020 that building new coal-fired plants was like going back to Blockbuster video after getting Netflix. That hasn’t worried China. Chinese imports of coal from Australia surged to their highest levels in three years in July after bans imposed in 2020 were lifted on 18 May. It approved the construction of an additional 106 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2022, four times higher than in 2021.
Unlike in Australia, these projects are being built in a matter of months. For the foreseeable future, it seems we are all Coalkeepers now.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/whos-the-coalkeeper-now/ ?
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment