![]() |
Go ![]() | New ![]() | Find ![]() | Notify ![]() | Tools ![]() | Reply ![]() | ![]() |
Member |
Dear Climate Alarmists – We Will Never Forget nor Forgive. By Adam Piggott - XYZ.NET.AU February 7, 2017
http://www.xyz.net.au/dear-cli...ever-forget-forgive/ | |||
|
Member |
Australia’s Renewable Energy Target Already Costing $3 billion a Year, with Much Worse to Come February 12, 2017 Australia’s economic hopes go up in smoke. ![]() *** With fear, loathing and recriminations playing out in Canberra about South Australia’s electricity debacle and the skyrocketing power prices mass blackouts and routine load shedding its obsession with wind power has delivered, Sabine Schnittger and Brian Fisher of BAEconomics have thrown the spotlight back on the Federal government’s family, job, growth and business killer: the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target. As STT has repeatedly pointed out, the LRET operates as a $3 billion a year tax on all Australian electricity consumers, designed to be funnelled to wind power outfits as a subsidy: the largest single industry subsidy scheme ever in the history of the Commonwealth. We’ll start with this wrap up from The Australian. Bill to prop up green power hits $3 billion a year The Australian Simon Benson 6 February 2017 The true cost of subsidising renewable energy generation is estimated to have almost doubled since 2011. Taxpayer subsidies to meet state and federal renewable energy targets have reached $3 billion a year and include spiralling hidden subsidies paid for by business and household electricity customers which go unreported in government balance sheets. more at: https://stopthesethings.com/20...-much-worse-to-come/ | |||
|
Member |
Economics to Keep Wind and Solar Energy Thriving With Trump by Joe Ryan, Chris Martin, and Jim Polson 23November,2016, 10:01 am AEST On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour. In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour. Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal. Environmental rules and government subsidies are no longer the key drivers for clean power. Economics are. That’s why Donald Trump will have limited influence on the U.S. utility industry’s push toward renewable energy, according to executives and investors. Companies including NextEra Energy Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and others that invest billions in power plants are already moving forward with long-term plans to generate electricity with cleaner and more economic alternatives. | |||
|
Member |
Australian fossil fuel subsidies put at $5.6bn a year in new report By Sophie Vorrath on 12 November 2015 As the Prime Minister heads to Turkey to attend this weekend’s G20 Summit in Antalya, a new international report has revealed that Australia is still subsidising fossil fuel production to the tune of a massive $A5.6 billion a year. The report, ‘Empty promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production’, also highlights how Australian companies have received billions of dollars from other G20 governments to develop liquefied natural gas sites. And it notes that Australia also funds the industry with a further $A292 million ($US262 million) a year in public finance, as it expands fossil fuel production on multiple fronts. ![]() | |||
|
Member |
[Q ![]() Economics to Keep Wind and Solar Energy Thriving With Trump by Joe Ryan, Chris Martin, and Jim Polson 23November,2016, 10:01 am AEST On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour. In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour. Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal. [[/QUOTE] Yee Haw ![]() ![]() Last time I looked, big windpower was around a buck/KWHR (1 Meg = $1,000,000) and solar was around 4 bucks. You really should not be reading fake news. Bill 91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten 89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces) 84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky) 94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it) | |||
|
Member |
Yee Haw Bill, Yee Haw ![]() Don't recall anyone saying that you could "get a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks" Yee Haw ![]() ![]() You probably need to go back and re-read the article. Yee Haw ![]() ![]() Yee Haw, you better have another look at your maths here! ![]() ![]() You mean like the ones Mike uses! ![]() ![]() | |||
|
Member |
Maybe its my Canadian perspective but I read this as being able to construct a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks. Please enlighten me. As far as the math, I stand corrected. Large wind farm prices run around a dollar per watt and Solar farms are now down to around 4 bucks per watt, not kilowatt. I guess I was so excited to learn that I could get a 1 meg wind turbine for what amounts to an expensive lunch that my math went out the window. Yee Haw ![]() Bill 91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten 89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces) 84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky) 94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it) | |||
|
Member |
Yee Haw Bill, I could tell you were excited. ![]() As Our good mate Mike often tells people. Don't complain to me about the content of the article, I only posted it. If you have a concern take it up with the people who published it. ![]() | |||
|
Member |
New reports highlight bright, low-cost future of wind John Hensley August 18, 2016 A number of recent reports paint a bright future for the U.S. wind industry thanks to continuing cost declines, with reductions of more than 60 percent since 2009. This cost trajectory is attributable to, among other things, advanced manufacturing techniques, improved construction methods, larger turbine blades, economies of scale, and other advances in turbine technology. While manufacturers and construction companies continue to bring down the cost of building and installing wind turbines, innovative technology enables turbines to access better wind speeds at higher elevations, capturing more of the wind’s energy and turning it into electricity with greater efficiency. In an equity research note dated June 30, Goldman Sachs concluded that “when compared to other incremental sources of power, wind provides the lowest cost source of new capacity.” The investment bank calculated current wind levelized cost of electricity at $29/Megawatt Hour (MWh), compared to $38/MWh for natural gas combined-cycle plants and $57/MWh for utility-scale solar PV projects. Macquarie Research also looked at levelized cost of electricity comparisons in 2016 including the PTC. With the tax credit in place, Macquarie projects electricity from new wind projects to cost around $23/MWh compared to $50/MWh for new gas plants. Given U.S. wind energy’s cost position, Macquarie finds the U.S. to be the most attractive wind market in the world, surpassing both China and Europe. ![]() Whoop-ee-ti-yi-o get along little doggies You know that Wyoming will be your new home | |||
|
Member |
Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out http://business.financialpost....science-to-speak-out Lawrence Solomon | February 16, 2017 Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago. Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated? Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation. Among those astonished was the Danish delegation to the IPCC. It discovered at one of the IPCC’s early meetings a quarter-century ago that its scientists could not present their study, newly published in the prestigious journal Science, showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and solar activity. To their further astonishment, to squelch dissent the IPCC cabal set out to destroy the reputation of its chief author, falsely accusing him of fabricating data. Whistleblowers now know they will no longer be silenced. Dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy soon learned that, if they refused to recant, they stood to lose their jobs, their funding, and their reputations. They also learned the corollary: to get hired, to get funded, to get promoted, they needed to produce the science the authorities wanted. Governments annually spent billions of dollars on climate change research, virtually all of it commissioned to prove that the science was settled — that man-made climate change represented an existential threat to the planet. None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud. Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals. The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down. Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted. In fact, major surveys show that scientists in the tens of thousands do not believe that global warming represents a threat. With the departure of president Obama and his administration, which had blocked independent investigations from being pursued, whistleblowers in greater numbers will now dare to come forward, knowing they will no longer be silenced. One of them is Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA, who described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures. In a press release last week, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith thanked “Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.” This week a second press release from the same committee indicated that NOAA will be brought to account. The blizzard of lies from NOAA and other corrupted agencies will soon be outed in excruciating detail. The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media. Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group. | |||
|
Member |
South Australia Falls Victim to Green Hubris http://instituteforenergyresea...victim-green-hubris/ February 16, 2017 Over the past two weeks, the state of South Australia was confronted by a heat wave of record strength and its wind-reliant grid failed miserably. Temperatures soared to nearly 110°F in the capital city of Adelaide on Wednesday, February 8, and did not fall below 86°F until after midnight. Extraordinary temperatures, of course, require an extraordinary effort by the electricity sector to power air conditioning units along with all other demands. When put to the test, South Australia’s wind-heavy electricity mix showed us yet again that variable sources of electricity cannot be relied on when needed most. Fear of complete system failure—as was experienced in September of last year—forced grid operators to resort to load shedding, i.e. rolling blackouts, leaving South Australians withering in the mid-summer heat. | |||
|
Member |
A 3 megaWatt wind turbine uses 2 tonnes of rare earth metals for magnets, every Prius has 11 kg of rare earth metals in it's batteries. TT Adelaide | Poison Wind Poison wind power – the shocking environmental damage they don’t want you to see. Hendrik Gout reports. https://www.todaytonightadelai.../stories/poison-wind | |||
|
Member |
Authentic Italian pasta dishes require, at most, a quarter cup of red spaghetti sauce per serving, while traditional American versions of spaghetti call for about 1/2 cup of sauce centered on top of the spaghetti. Therefore, anywhere from 2 to 4 ounces of spaghetti sauce for each serving is needed | |||
|
Member |
Carbon dioxide levels rose at record pace for 2nd straight year 21 years off the grid and counting | |||
|
Member |
The trend of average global temperature measured over the past 8000 years since the Holocene Optimum has been cooling. The trend of average global temperature measured over the past 400 years since the Little Ice Age has been warming. The trend of average global temperature measured over the past 20 years shows no significant change. Pick whichever time frame supports the political agenda you prefer; the planet doesn't care. Neither do earth scientists who are not beholden to any political masters. The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates. These links explain it well. https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...04578217621593679506 https://youtu.be/j5M1qtN62yk | |||
|
Member |
Then posts an opinion piece by a politician, good one. why not talk to the scientist who is actually doing the work Establishing the Earth’s Atmospheric Record, One Air Flask at a Time
21 years off the grid and counting | |||
|
Member |
Yummmm- SPAGHETTI! | |||
|
Member |
Ok you lost me with that one ![]() 21 years off the grid and counting | |||
|
Member |
Yum! Spaghetti!!
| |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 180 181 182 183 184 |
![]() | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|