Monday, November 27, 2023
Historic Dutch election results are a victory for climate realism
The historical victory of the PVV (Party for Freedom) in the Dutch General Elections of November 22nd was primarily linked to the theme of immigration. But let’s not forget that the PVV has also been a climate sceptic party for years now. The party doesn’t want money-consuming climate plans (i.e. CO2 reduction). Here’s what the party manifesto says:
“For decades now, we have been frightened by predictions of climate change doom. And although the projected disaster scenarios – about the world coming to an end – grew more extreme over the years, none of them ever become true.
We should stop being scared. The Netherlands is a smart country: we have the best water engineers in the world. Many years ago, our Delta Commissioner said we live in the safest delta in the world, we are well protected and there is no reason for panic.
The climate always changes and has been changing for centuries. When circumstances change, we adapt to them. We do that through sensible water management, by raising dikes when necessary and by giving rivers more space. But we should stop the hysterical reduction of CO2, an action we, a small country, wrongly think can ‘save’ the climate.
The Netherlands is responsible for less than half of a percent of the total global emission of CO2. In answer to questions of the PVV, the Minister (of Climate) admitted that his climate program with 122 measures, would only lead to a reduction of global warming by 0,000036 degrees. The amount of CO2 that The Netherlands avoids emitting with these measures, is compensated by the amount that China emits in less than one day. And the cost of all this is 28 billion euros! This has nothing to do with reality, it is all about climate ideology and delusions of grandeur.
And for this unaffordable insanity, we should change our entire way of living: our coal-fired power plants are being closed, while there are hundreds of them built in Asia as we speak. Our houses will no longer use natural gas, at the cost of tens of thousands of euros, while natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Our country is being crammed with dismal wind turbines, while local residents literally get sick because of them. They want us to use heat pumps and electric cars, while our power grid – that used to be one of the most reliable in the world – can’t cope with demand. We must fly less, eat less meat; it never stops.
The PVV says: there is no way we are going to do that! The Climate Law, the Climate Agreement and all the other climate measures will go directly to the paper shredder. No more wasting of billions of euros for pointless climate hobbies, but more money for our people.
The energy bill has risen to record highs over the past few years. Many hundreds of thousands of people live in energy poverty. This year, the average energy bill will rise by many hundreds of euros. More than half of that is due to higher taxes! The Dutch energy tax on natural gas, is amongst the highest in all Europe. The Dutch are being squeezed. That’s why the PVV wants to lower the energy tax and VAT on energy.”
Five years ago, FvD (Forum for Democracy) won the local (Provincial) elections, with climate as an important theme. This year BBB (Farmer-Citizen Movement) won the Provincial Elections with their critical views on nitrogen. There are enough clues that lots of citizens have had enough of the unrelenting nagging about climate and nitrogen fertilizer, despite the massive media support of climate alarmism day after day.
****************************************************
Offshore Wind Cannot Be Justified
Offshore wind facilities are enormously expensive and environmentally destructive. The primary purported justification for constructing them is to reduce “carbon” (carbon dioxide or CO2) emissions and save the planet from “catastrophic climate change.” However, this justification is not just built on a false premise; adding offshore wind to a state’s energy mix will most likely increase global CO2 emissions. That means the net emission benefits are hugely negative, as are other net environmental and economic effects.
This study finds that carbon dioxide reductions from local (state and national, as opposed to global) wind power generation are greatly overstated. For starters, any CO2 decrease will be small at best, largely because the intermittency of necessary wind speeds forces backup gas-fired power emissions to increase when the wind isn’t blowing. (Sufficient backup electricity from battery modules is also hugely expensive, heavily reliant on raw materials that are in short supply, and likely a decade or more away.)
The net result is that adding offshore wind to the existing coal, gas and nuclear and/or hydroelectric power system, though modestly lowering emissions at first glance, does little to reduce local power emissions overall because of the gas (or coal) backup generation now needed to maintain a stable grid.
But the story gets worse.
Often overlooked are the other factors associated with wind energy that actually drive up emissions. For example, supply chain emissions from constructing offshore wind facilities to replace existing generation facilities will be very large. Supply chain emissions include those arising from all the steps required to create an offshore wind facility: mining and processing the necessary metals and minerals, manufacturing components, constructing turbines and substations on site, and operating, maintaining, replacing, and ultimately decommissioning and landfilling worn out, damaged and obsolete equipment. They also include the myriad transportation steps along the way, via ship or truck.
These supply chain emissions are global and add to the global atmosphere. Thus, the net result of combining small local CO2 reductions with large increases in emissions via the supply chain is not a reduction in global atmospheric CO2, but an overall increase of atmospheric CO2.
In short, the “emission reduction” justification touted by proponents of building offshore wind facilities is simplistic and false.
Finally, another justification for building wind farms is that they benefit local job creation. This too is by-in-large false. One reason is that such jobs are subsidized by local electric power ratepayers that will likely see their electricity prices soar, leading to layoffs in many businesses and the closing of businesses and entire industries – making the net benefit minimal, zero or even negative. Even worse, much of the ratepayer and taxpayer money behind offshore wind facilities will go overseas, because that is where the supply chain exists. In short, the jobs created by wind energy should be viewed as costs, not benefits.
Moreover, few local jobs will be created directly by offshore wind energy facilities, because building them is a simple assembly project, not a construction project. This is because the parts being assembled are primarily manufactured and fabricated overseas. These include the towers, turbines, blades, connecting cables, substations and transformers. Adding insult to injury, assembling offshore turbines is typically done by highly specialized ships primarily provided by foreign nations.
Local or US jobs are likely to be relatively few and even low-paying installation, maintenance, repair, decommissioning and recycling/landfilling jobs. Factory jobs manufacturing offshore wind turbine components will likely disappear, because US factories will no longer have reliable, affordable power in a wind-solar-battery-backup-gas-turbine economy; will be faced with hiring highly paid American workers; and thus will not be able to compete with Asian and other foreign competitors.
Also on the local level, once the actual overseas emission increases and local reductions are known, it is possible to calculate a cost per ton of carbon dioxide reduction. This number is likely to be very large, certainly in the thousands of dollars per ton and possibly much more. Moreover, supply chain costs will almost assuredly grow because critical raw material shortages are predicted as demand increases.
This study is only and initial examination of the complex issues surrounding the alleged justification for massive offshore wind development. For illustrative purposes, we have used a few simple examples, such as New Jersey’s 11,000-MW offshore wind target and emissions created along the supply chain for installing mostly monopile turbines.
However, our findings are more general in scope and application. In brief, for all offshore wind installations:
A. Local power system emission reductions will be small.
B. Supply chain emissions will be large.
C. Global emissions will therefore increase, not decrease.
Conclusion 1: There are no carbon dioxide emission reduction benefits, and thus no manmade climate change amelioration justifications for offshore wind development.
Our secondary findings explain in greater detail why this is so.
A. Any local jobs created will be exorbitantly costly when US wage scales, “clean energy” subsidies and ratepayer increases are factored in, and thus are likely to be relatively few and low-paying.
B. Many existing local jobs will disappear, as electricity costs replace fossil fuel costs and rise steadily – resulting in layoffs in many economic sectors and reduced spending by cash-strapped families.
C. Supply chain costs are bound to go up due to rising US and global demand for and looming shortages of essential metals and minerals.
Conclusion 2: Offshore wind projects and infrastructure are tremendously expensive, will provide pricey intermittent electricity, and thus will destroy numerous American jobs while supporting few long-term jobs that offer similar wages.
Conclusion 3: Offshore wind projects and infrastructure inflict numerous other costs that thus far have not been factored into any cost-benefit analyses for the industry.
Conclusion 4: The net “carbon” (carbon dioxide) reduction effects of offshore wind development are thus hugely negative and cannot justify further investments in this industry.
https://heartland.org/opinion/offshore-wind-cannot-be-justified/ ?
*************************************************
Mounting Evidence That ‘Net-Zero’ Carbon Emissions Isn’t Achievable
Arizona State University President Michael Crow believes we are in such danger that we should amend the U.S. Constitution to empower the government to deal more expansively with climate change. Crow’s view that constitutional protections of our liberties should be eliminated when they become inconvenient wouldn’t square with the founders, but his estimate of the dangers and required remedies for our changing climate are quite mainstream in our society.
“Net zero by 2050” has become an article of faith among our corporate and academic elites, no longer requiring proof or intellectual defense. The notion that we must eliminate or “offset” all carbon emissions by mid-century if we want to save the planet is the organizing principle for ESG investing. ESG is the consideration of environmental issues, social issues, and corporate governance issues when deciding what companies to invest in. In 2022, it was mentioned more than 6000 times in corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC has “helpfully” proposed climate disclosure rules for companies to help investors “evaluate the progress in meeting net-zero emissions and assessing any associated risk.” Skeptics are sidelined as “climate deniers.”
But mounting scientific evidence suggests that net zero is wildly impractical and probably not even achievable. In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the U.S. electric power industry (which would seem to be naturally inclined to support proposals that increase reliance on electricity), released a sober report on the practicality of net zero.
Their study concluded that “clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency … are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions.” Translation: it can’t be done. No amount of wind turbines, solar panels, battery power, fossil fuel, or other available technologies will achieve net zero by 2050.
Furthermore, even “deep carbonization”—drastic reductions in atmospheric carbon levels—is an impossible dream. With natural gas and nuclear generation forced to the sidelines, that would require options like carbon removal technologies, which would cost a quadrillion (million billion) dollars, which would … well, you get the picture.
Finally, the report concludes living in a net-zero world may not be all that great. Supply chains operating only on electricity and the reliability and resiliency of a net-zero electricity grid could be highly problematic.
The response to this nonpartisan and obviously consequential report was silence. There has been essentially no media coverage. No climate activists rushed to dispute the methodology nor challenge the conclusions.
This is a significant tell. You could assume if the eco-activists were genuinely concerned about our climate future, they would have some interest in responding to this major challenge to their assumptions. But they ignored it to cling to their groupthink.
Yet other indications that the transition to renewable fuels is already off the tracks keep coming. The government-certified North American Electric Reliability Corporation recently issued its 2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. It concluded that fossil fuel plants were being removed from the grid too quickly to meet electricity demand, putting us at risk for energy shortages and even blackouts during extreme weather.
But wait, there’s more.
PGM International, a large grid operator in the Northeast, recently released projections indicating it will soon lose 40,000 megawatts, or 21% of its generation capacity. The looming plant closures are mostly “policy-driven” by onerous Environmental Protection Agency regulations and mandatory ESG commitments.
Renewables, although lavishly subsidized by government to replace the lost electricity, consistently underperform and will be able to produce—at most—half of the electricity lost. Meanwhile, the government is perversely mandating electric vehicles, appliances, and whatever that will drain more electricity from the grid precisely when the grid has less to give.
Finally, the repeated assertions of “settled science” when it comes to climate change were unsettled by 1,609 scientists and professors worldwide signing a “No Climate Emergency” declaration. The document was issued by Climate Intelligence or Clintel, a nonpartisan, self-funded, independent organization of scholars whose only agenda is “to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change and climate policy.”
The scholars point out that there is no basis for claiming an upcoming existential crisis. Carbon dioxide is not primarily a pollutant but a necessary basis for life. Moreover, there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying natural disasters. Panic is dangerous, with the potential to plunge us into perpetual poverty.
They charge that climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on unsubstantiated beliefs, not on “self-critical science.” Historians of the future, reflecting on our era of hyper-politicized science, will undoubtedly agree.
***************************************************
Australian Left takes on Greens over gas with deal to add supply, lower price
Australians will be promised a boost to gas supply in a Labor move to ease pressure on energy prices, setting up a test for the Coalition and the Greens to back the federal changes or be blamed for deepening the nation’s cost-of-living crisis.
The federal government will reveal two energy deals to fix a looming gas shortage under an industry regime the Greens are seeking to block, raising the stakes in a Senate vote on Monday on the country’s reliance on fossil fuels.
In a spate of domestic policy moves, the government is also poised to announce a deal to increase environmental flows in the Murray-Darling river system, claim a $250 million consumer saving from its changes to medicine prescriptions and unveil draft law to reform the Reserve Bank.
Parliament meets on Monday for the final sitting fortnight of the year with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese seeking a focus on domestic policy after arguments with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton over China, the release of detainees from indefinite detention and the response to conflict in the Middle East.
With retail energy prices rising, the government has been under pressure to boost gas supplies using the code it introduced this year to fix prices at $12 per gigajoule and force producers to meet local demand, in tandem with separate restrictions on coal.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen has struck deals with gas exporters Senex and Australia Pacific LNG to divert 300 petajoules to the domestic market over the next six years, with both commitments starting this month.
The gas will be supplied under enforceable undertakings that exempt Senex and APLNG from the price cap but expose them to action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission if they do not meet their pledges.
With about 140 petajoules promised by the end of 2027 under the new deals, the outcome initially adds 35 petajoules to the domestic market on average every year. The ACCC estimates household, commercial and industrial demand adds up to 447 petajoules each year.
The Greens are seeking to halt the gas code by moving a motion in the Senate to disallow the regulations Bowen put in place in July, which will force Labor to rely on the Coalition to keep the code in place. The Coalition voted against the legislation to set up the regime last December, making the disallowance motion on the code another test of its stance.
Greens treasury spokesperson Nick McKim has welcomed measures to cut prices but accused the government of encouraging new gas fields to be developed under the code.
***************************************
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
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment