A recent study by Willie Soon and William Briggs, indicates that the sun’s radiation has a direct correlation with daytime temperatures.

Soon and Briggs say, “Even small changes in solar radiation may have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, our research demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, we have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.

“This confirmation of a sun-temperature relation using only the daytime high temperature records from the USA certainly adds scientific weight to the soundness of this connection.”

Scientists over centuries have observed the relationship between sun spots and temperatures on the earth. William Herschel, in 1801, noted that the price of grains followed sun spot activity. Now there is additional peer reviewed science to support these observations.

TSAugust

September 16, 2012

UK Government Shifts Away From Green

Prime Minister David Cameron appointed two new cabinet members who have supported the fossil fuel industry.

Owen Paterson, appointed as environment minister, is an advocate of shale fracking. The other, as energy minister, is a wind farm skeptic.

It is becoming increasingly evident that environmental extremism is being replaced by a concern for economic improvement and more jobs.

One commentator said, “The final shred of credibility of ‘the greenest government ever’ has been doused in petrol and ignited with a casual flick of a gold-plated lighter.”

Peterson has said that subsidies for green projects, such as wind farms, should be eliminated.

There is now a drive for environmental deregulation and economic growth.

TSAugust

September 9, 2012

Climate Talks

The latest round of climate talks in Bangkok continue to be rancorous with poor nations demanding that rich nations contribute to a $100 billion per year fund.

The fund has been discussed for years, with poor nations believing that the rich nations have committed to contributing to the fund.

"All sides need a clearer understanding on how to get to $100 billion a year by 2020 with no gaps," said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s climate department and the public face of the talks.

The tax payers of the United States should find this of interest, since they will be bearing much of the burden if this fund ever becomes a reality.

"The United States, the EU and other Annex I countries have already accepted their responsibility to the climate crisis. The next logical and imperative thing to do is to fulfill their existing legally binding commitments and undertaking drastic emission cuts without offsets. No more skirting the issue. No more excuses. They need to act now," said Lopez, vice president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that they are already committed to paying their tax money into this fund.

The Bangkok talks are in preparation for the Doha round of talks to be held later this year.

Most people in the United States aren’t even aware of these talks, but would be aghast if they were.

TSAugust

September 2, 2012

China’s Increasingly Large Carbon Footprint

While environmentalists urge the EPA to continue to cut CO2 emissions in the United States and thereby hurt America’s economy, China continues to barrel along with greater and greater CO2 emissions.

Quoting the UK Guardian, “The European commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) show that per capita emissions in China increased by 9% in 2011 to reach 7.2 tons per person, only a fraction lower than the EU average of 7.5 tons.”

CO2 per capita emissions in the United States are reportedly at 17.3 tons per person, lower than the 20 tons per person in 2004 due to the recession and the shift to more natural gas for power generation.

Total Chinese CO2 emissions are much higher than the United States.

China’s per capita emissions will surpass the EU’s in the near future and will continue to climb towards U.S. per capita emissions.

There is little reason to virtually destroy the American economy by cutting CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, while China and India, and the rest of the developing world, continue to increase their CO2 emissions.

TSAugust

August 12, 2012

Alarm Over Iceberg

Recently, a very large chunk of the Petermann Glacier broke free from the glacier. It received widespread media attention and much alarm and hand wringing about global warming.

Not mentioned in most media stories was that a similar very large piece split from the same glacier in 2010.

As Anthony Watts says, the “glacier is doing what glaciers do.”

Photos of both instances and a thorough article on this event can be seen at Watts Up With That, at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/crack-in-the-earth-greenland-glacier-loses-ice-island-twice-the-size-of-manhattan

TSAugust

August 5, 2012

Fracking Update

Two events worth noting.

First, sampling of private water wells in Dimock, Pa., has been completed and the EPA found no contamination warranting further investigation.

Here are the EPA’s statements.

“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action,” Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said on July 25. “Throughout EPA's work in Dimock, the agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.”

Second, a new movie, Truthland, has been produced that completely debunks Gasland, the movie that made misleading claims about fracking being dangerous.

Truthland can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJaaeiuzSU

TSAugust

July 29, 2012

DOI Restricts OCS Development for Oil

The Department of the Interior’s 5-year US Outer Continental Shelf program severely restricts development.

The program puts 85% of the OCS off-limits to drilling. It also reimposes moratoriums previously lifted.

The US House Natural Resource Committee is drafting a Bill to reverse these restrictions, and open the OCS to greater development, including areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. Virginia and Southern California, for example, would be allowed to drill in the OCS.

Unfortunately, the Senate will probably not go along with the House’s attempt to increase development of oil and gas.

TSAugust

July 22, 2012

Antarctic Not Losing Ice

Contrary to the gloom and doom postulated by the UN and its International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ice in Antarctica isn’t melting.

The American Geophysical Union, announced new research that shows ice isn’t melting, and that computer models were wrong.

They said in their announcement:

"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted … "

Interestingly, the expedition used sensors attached to seals to obtain some of the data from the ice shelf. This simplified getting data during the winter when the weather makes getting data extremely dangerous.

TSAugust

July 15, 2012

Perhaps thousands of wind turbines are sinking into the North Sea because of a design flaw.

“The fault was first discovered at the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands and affects those with single cylinder foundations”, according to the Bourse, a Netherlands newspaper.

The concrete is apparently crumbling which causes the wind turbines to settle several inches. Any such settling has the potential to throw turbine components out of alignment which could cause failure of the units, as well as making them less stable to combat the wind and wave action found in the seas off the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Off-shore wind farms are notoriously expensive, and this could create an additional threat to future off-shore wind turbine development.

As noted earlier, Fitch is already warning of the risks associated with off-shore wind farms.

TSAugust

July 8, 2012

Most off-shore wind activity has been in Europe, though some projects have been proposed off the coast of Virginia and Massachusetts.

The Fitch rating agency has now indicated that building off-shore wind farms is far riskier than building wind farms on land.

There is weather and conditions at sea that multiply the construction and scheduling risks. In addition, off-shore wind projects are utilizing new and larger turbine designs. These 5 MW units have very little track record and, because of their size, introduce new construction and operating risks.

The Director of Infrastructure at Fitch said, “The industry is moving towards bigger (5MW and higher) and more offshore-specific turbine models, for which there is less or even no operating track record,”

The Wind Energy Update said, “In a report published on May 23, Construction Risk in Offshore Wind Farms, Fitch outlined a series of concerns – from cable installation to complex marine logistics and the involvement of numerous contractors on any given project – as potential barriers to growth in the European industry.”

These same concerns are likely to be reflected in off-shore wind projects off the coast of the United States.

TSAugust

July 1, 2012

The focus of the recently issued International Energy Agency (IEA) report is on cutting CO2 emissions.

The graphic on page 6 of the Tracking Clean Energy report, places great emphasis on the failure thus far of CCS, the lack of nuclear power, the need for industry to switch to low carbon fuels,  the need to retrofit buildings for energy efficiency to cut CO2 emissions, and the flagging development of electric vehicles to cut CO2 emissions.

The IEA is fixated on one objective: keeping temperatures from rising 2 degrees C. It is, in fact, the title of its most recent report: Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 2 degrees C Scenario.

While people need energy, especially in poor countries, the IEA is hidebound to in its efforts to cut CO2 emissions.

This fixation is hurting people everywhere, including the United States where the EPA’s policies are focused on cutting CO2 emissions.

TSAugust

June 17, 2012

Environmentalists repeatedly claim that fracking endangers the water supply.

There have been no documented cases of fracking having contaminated the water supply.

A July 10, 2010 article shows a picture of how far fractures in shale propagate, and none ever get close to the aquifer.

This article may be two years old, but it is still an important demonstration that fracking doesn’t endanger the water supply.

The article can be viewed at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/feb2012/data_confirm_

safety_of_well_fracturing.pdf

TSAugust

June 10, 2012

Former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Thomas Hayward, USN (Ret), along with two of his colleagues, Vice Admiral Edward Briggs, USN (Ret), and Captain Donald K. (Deke) Forbes, USN (Ret), have spoken ouit against DOD spending money on fruitless efforts to combat climate change.

The money spent on such initiatives as algae for fuels, is being wasted.

According to an article in Forbes, “In 2007, Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) snuck amendment language into the National Defense Authorization Act which required the Department of Defense (DOD) to consider the effects of climate change upon their facilities, capabilities and missions. In 2009, another CNAMAB submitted a new report, Powering America’s Defense, emphasizing the development of renewable fuels for the military.”

The article added, “The three high ranking officers observe that the U.S. Navy’s energy policy now seems also to be anchored on rationale that our fossil sources aren’t secure, and that reliance upon them is bad strategy, bad business, bad for the planet…premises founded on flawed science and a bogus “consensus” assertion that over 2,000 scientists IPCC agreed with this finding. In reality, the great majority of these scientists were not involved in, or likely even aware of, the basis for such conclusions.”

The article makes clear that the unwarranted investment in alternative energy is harming our nations ability to defend itself.

Rather than wasting money on agae fuels, we should be drilling in the outer continental shelf, on federal lands and in Alaske.

The full article is at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/06/03/former-top-usn-admiral-sees-navy-moored-in-shallow-climate-science-and-green-energy-hype/

TSAugust

June 3, 2012

EPA’s recent approval of using E15, a 15% mixture of Ethanol in gasoline, will endanger any car using it unless the vehicle is rated E85.

The EPA claims that cars built after 2001 will be able to tolerate E15, but many dispute this claim.

As one group reported, "This decision is particularly troubling, since recent information released by the Coordinating Research Council shows failures when using E15 in vehicles approved by EPA.”

Ethanol is extremely corrosive and also absorbs moisture which compounds the problem.

Fuel lines and other engine components can be damaged by any concentration of ethanol of slightly more than 10%.

Given that the ethanol program has cost tax payers billions and that it uses food for fuel, it would seem the wrong thing to do to expand the use of ethanol.

There is enough oil in North America to last well into the next century, making ethanol unnecessary.

TSAugust

May 20th, and 27^th 2012

The Royal Astronomical Society in London will publish Svensmark’s latest paper supporting the notion that cosmic rays have an important influence on climate change.

The paper, “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” emphasizes that climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.

Svensmark’s hypothesis is that strength of the sun’s electromagnetic field depends on sunspots, and that the field either deflects cosmic rays, or allows them to enter the earth’s atmosphere. Increased levels of cosmic rays increase low level cloud cover that cools the earth.

His hypothesis is gaining adherents as a recent CERN laboratory experiment has indicated that cosmic rays can affect cloud development. This has been the largest question mark concerning Svensmark’s hypothesis.

TSAugust

April 29, 2012

Total Cost of Owning an EV

A recent Pike Research report claims that Electric Vehicles (EVs, which rely solely on battery power, have a lower Total Cost of Ownership than conventional gasoline vehicles (ICEs).

Here are the facts, and you can make up your mind. The calculations are easy and the next time you are at a car dealer you can run through the cost of ownership for any of the several different types of EVs and PHEVs.

First, the head of Ford said it costs $12,000 to $15,000 to make a battery pack. As most people know, the cost of an EV is about $10,000 more than a comparable ICE vehicle. This means the manufacturer is eating, i.e., subsidizing, a substantial part of the battery’s cost.

Second, charging a battery will cost about $1.60 for a 16 hour charge. On a Leaf this will take you about 80 miles, at best.

At $1.60 it amounts to 2 cents (0.02) per mile.

Assuming 25 miles per gallon for gasoline at $4.00 per gallon it costs about 16 cents ($0.16) per mile.

Therefore the Leaf saves 14 cents ($0.14) per mile.

The vehicle must be driven for about 71,000 miles to pay for the $10,000 cost of the battery.

For the driver who drives 10,000 miles per year it will take 7 years to pay for the added cost of the battery.

It’s doubtful the average person will want to keep the car for 7 years, especially since the life of the battery may not be much more.

TSAugust

April 22, 2012

April 15, 2012

The Department of Energy’s (DOE), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is promoting the leasing of PV solar roof top systems as a way to increase the use of PV solar. NREL also says that leasing allows poor neighborhoods to “benefit” from PV solar.

NREL's Easan Drury is the lead author of the Energy Policy report "The Transformation of Southern California's Residential Photovoltaics Market through Third-Party Ownership."

The leasing of solar panels to homeowners is a scam that takes advantage of government subsidies, feed-in-tariffs or net-metering, and depreciation that a homeowner can’t take advantage of to provide a profit to the leasing company at the expense of tax payer money.

This is fully described at Power For USA, see Feeding at Subsidy Trough at http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/feeding-at-subsidy-trough/

The fact that the federal government is promoting this scam that uses tax payer money is reprehensible.

TSAugust

April 9, 2012

The recently released new EPA regulations on emitting CO2 from power plants, effectively prevents the building of any new coal-fired power plants.

The head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, has been championing the case against CO2, which includes targeting the cutting of CO2 emissions in the United States 80% by 2050.

A respected not for profit has just released an analysis of Lisa Jackson’s actions.

What it shows is a remarkable march towards European Socialism and the New World Order.

The paper is available here.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/

papers/originals/epa_un_mission.pdf

“The EPA is effectively no longer under the control of the US Congress; its allegiance is to the UN and implementation of the policies of Sustainable Development via Agenda 21.”

These are harsh words that must be backed by proof.

The referenced SPPI paper supplies the proof.

There is no question that the EPA is causing serious harm to the United States in its efforts to cut our CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

The book, Carbon Folly, www.carbonfolly.com, provides the proof that it is impossible to cut our CO2 emissions by 8% without destroying the economy.

TSAugust

March 31, 2012

Each year TSAugust has reported on the fact that more severe hurricanes were sighted in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half.

We have also made note of the fact that improved observation techniques, such as satellites, have identified more hurricanes than was previously possible using visual observations from land and sea.

A new study documents this in greater detail.

Quoting from an article in World Climate Report:

“In a new paper, Andrew Hagen (University of Miami) and Chris Landsea (National Hurricane Center) conclude that changing observational practices have resulted in more Cat 4&5 hurricanes being identified in recent decades compared to past ones. Again, the increase is not due to a changing climate but changing detection technologies.”

The following chart from the report demonstrates when new methods were introduced to identify hurricanes.

The report also establishes, that some recent hurricanes would not have been classified as Category 5 storms if the same classification techniques had been used as before the mid-twentieth century.

This means that compared to the first half of the twentieth century, there were even fewer Cat 3 – 5 storms

TSAugust

March 25, 2012

Canadian Senator Speech

Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Honourable senators, I rise to address Bill S-205, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

If passed, this amendment would give tax credits to Canadians who invest in so-called carbon offsets. While I have no objection to citizens spending their own money in any way they choose, I do not support the government's giving tax credits for carbon offsets.

I say this for several reasons.

First and foremost, I consider it an unnecessary and undesirable expense at a time when we should be looking for ways to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. While it is true that the amendment would benefit those who invest in carbon offsets, it would be an expense that would have to be covered by all other taxpayers.

I say it is unnecessary because, contrary to the assertions of the honourable senator sponsoring the bill, it addresses an issue that is more and more being questioned by new scientific evidence.

We simply do not know that our actions have a significant impact on the global climate, let alone that "the consequences of not acting can be catastrophic," to quote Senator Mitchell.

I do not pretend to be a climate expert, but I have spent a lot of time over the past decade reading about this topic and listening to those scientists who are true experts.

This, I believe, puts me in a good position to apply a common sense approach to the issue.

Before I outline what I think would be a logical, "no regrets" approach to climate change, I need to clear up some misconceptions about so-called carbon emissions, a term erroneously used by the honourable senator sponsoring this bill in his speech in this chamber on November 23.

In Canada and in the United States and, indeed, in many industrialized countries, about 85 per cent of the greenhouse gas we release, other than water vapour, is carbon dioxide.

This is not carbon, but a compound of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, yielding a molecule that has the chemical formula CO2. This is not merely an academic point. Ignoring the oxygen atoms and calling CO2 emissions carbon emissions is as appropriate as ignoring oxygen in water vapour or H2O and calling it hydrogen. Most Canadians would regard it ridiculous to have their water bill labeled a hydrogen bill.

The "CO2 is carbon" mistake is a common misconception, and it unjustifiably encourages people to view this benign gas as dirty, which indeed it is not. Unlike carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants, carbon dioxide is not toxic. In fact, it is an essential ingredient in plant photosynthesis, without which there would be no life on earth.

For the past century, greenhouse operators have been adding CO2 to the air inside greenhouses to enhance plant growth. This is because plants are somewhat undernourished in CO2 at today's atmospheric levels. We are closer to low CO2 levels, at which plants die, than we are to any dangerous upper limit.

Throughout most of earth's history, CO2 levels have been significantly higher than they are now, and life flourished.

Unlike a decade ago, when few scientists dared express doubt that humanity's CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming, it seems now that not a week goes by without some leading expert condemning the hypothesis.

On January 27, The Wall Street Journal published an open letter from 16 leading scientists in which they told politicians that they must, and I quote: “. . . understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.

In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.” Signatories to the letter included such eminent scientists as Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of Earth at the University of Paris, and Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, in Geneva.

Open letters and petitions like this have been circulating for years, several of which were sent to the three most recent Canadian prime ministers. The best known of all of these documents is the Global Warming Petition Project, which now claims over 31,000 U.S. scientists and technically qualified professionals. They assert: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.”

Honourable senators, if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not causing climate change, what is causing it? In December, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from leading climate experts whose research indicates that the primary driver of climate change is the sun.

They maintain that the greenhouse gas reduction recommendations of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, are simply in error and that humanity does not control our planet's climate.

I cannot judge whether they are right, but I do think that we must carefully consider well-substantiated alternative theories in a field as immature as climate change science.

After all, if governments are to base policies on real science and not become bogged down in mere rhetoric and politically correct dogma, we must hear from experts who follow the scientific method, even, and perhaps especially, when they come to conclusions that are not currently in vogue.

The scientific method lays out how we must first observe nature, then create possible hypotheses to explain the observations, then test those hypotheses and then change our ideas to fit observed facts, all the while encouraging open, science-based discussion and questioning.

Yet today, unfortunately, many environmentalists become indignant if one dares question politically correct ideas about climate change. Clearly, this is not constructive.

In his working paper just submitted to Dutch authorities, leading scientist Arthur Rörsch critiqued the UN IPCC, the body whose reports constitute the foundation for many of the government's climate policies. He shows that their methods at times strongly deviate from the scientific method.

In the December Senate hearing, we heard about many of the other problems of the IPCC and how they simply can no longer be trusted as an unbiased source of scientific information.

Consequently, I recommend to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that they consider doing a thorough study into the current state of climate change science, carefully considering all reputable points of view on the issue.

In addition, the committee should consider whether the reports of the IPCC should be relied upon by the Government of Canada for policy formulation.

To give members a quick overview of the many problems with the IPCC, I suggest that you read the well-documented review by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise. Her book is entitled The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert.

After reading the book, you may no longer consider her book title to be mere humour.

It has often been suggested that to "fight climate change" Canada can easily make a conversion from conventional energy sources to low-carbon-dioxide emitting wind, solar and other power sources.

In his speech supporting Bill S-205, the honourable senator promoted these energy sources as job and wealth creators for Canada.

However, honourable senators, the experience in Europe tells a very different story.

For example, researchers at the Instituto Bruno Leoni in Italy found that for every so-called "green job" created by subsidies, nearly five times as many ordinary jobs could have been created in the general economy at the same cost. The Italian researchers add: “What's often ignored is that the creation of green jobs through subsidies or regulation inherently leads to the destruction of job opportunities in other industries. That's because any resource forcibly taken out of one sector and politically allocated in favour of renewable energy cannot be invested elsewhere.”

A November 2009 German economic paper from the Ruhr University Bochum and RWI, a publicly funded research institute, concluded: “It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated.”

University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, sums it up best by saying: “If spending money on greenhouse gas reduction is profitable and makes people better off then there is no need for government to force it to happen.”

I wish to make it clear that I believe that the Government of Canada must indeed continue to protect our natural environment, but we must concentrate our energy and financial resources on tackling environmental problems we know to be real, such as cleaning up toxic waste dumps and reducing agricultural and urban runoff that pollutes lakes and rivers.

The climate always changes and there may well be nothing we can do to stop it.

In summary, I believe that the real focus of Canada's climate policy, the no-regrets approach that yields benefits no matter what causes climate change, must be to help vulnerable people and communities prepare for and adapt to inevitable climate change.

We should also continue to support scientific research in the field so that some day we may be able to forecast climate to help us get ready for whatever nature throws at us next. ---end---

TSAugust

March 18, 2012

Penalize Oil from Canada

Europe is about to penalize oil from Canada.

CO2 emissions from the transportation sector in Europe have increased 36% since 1990, in the face of Europe’s attempt to cut CO2 emissions. And, CO2 emissions are expected to increase 74% above the 1990 baseline by 2050.

Now, to reverse the trend, Europe is considering penalizing oil from Canada’s oil-sands because its CO2 content is 23% higher than from traditionally refined oil.

Specifically, the European Commission proposed assigning an emissions value of 107g/MJ to oil sands, versus conventional oil's 87.5g/MJ.

Another goose that’s about to be killed, is the favorable tax credit for diesel. Diesel emits more CO2 because of its higher energy content. The favorable tax regime for diesel is one reason why diesel cars are predominant in Europe.

Assigning taxes based on CO2 emissions will hurt diesel in Europe – anad also hurt Canadian oil.

A carbon footprint dominates energy policy in Europe.

TSAugust

March 11, 2012

Imagine what would happen if the United States produced 10 million barrels of oil per day?

This is entirely possible, if this administration got out of the way.

And, if Canada, also increased its production to 4 million barrels per day.

Canada is on track to producing the 4 million barrels per day, and could easily exceed that goal. Unfortunately, that oil could go to China if we don’t allow the construction of the pipeline from Canada into the United States.

With combined output of 14 million barrels of oil per day, we would be the world’s largest source of crude. When that happens, we will have a major impact on prices, and Saudi Arabia and the other Mideast oil producers will no longer be able to manipulate the price of oil to their advantage.

TSAugust

March 4, 2012

The price of electricity in Germany has been driven higher by feed-in tariffs.

Feed-in tariffs require utilities to pay people who install solar panels a huge price, approximately 54 cents per kWh for the electricity generated by solar panels that’s sold to the utility.

Germany has now seen that this is unsustainable and is cutting back or eliminating feed-in tariffs.

Electricity from solar costs four times as much as electricity generated using fossil fuels, and solar can’t generate electricity at night or on cloudy days.

As a result of the push for green energy, Germans pay three times as much for electricity as do Americans.

This should be a cautionary tale for the United States, yet there continues to be a drive to replace fossil fuels in the United States with so-called green energy.

Bogus calculations are used to make it appear as though wind and solar generated electricity costs the same as electricity generated using coal or natural gas.

Typical of the phony calculations were those contained in a report by the Michigan Public Service Commission that used Levalized Costs in an effort to show that wind and solar were less expensive than coal or natural gas for generating electricity.

Levalized costs can provide any answer a person wants by adjusting such things as interest rates and equipment life. They also don’t include the cost of back-up power for when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

TSAugust

February 26, 2012

Fisker Automotive received a $529 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy (DOE).

Thus far Fisker has received $193 million of the loan, with the rest being held up by DOE until Fisker can meet its schedules.

At this point, Fisker has laid off employees in Delaware, at a former GM plant that was to be Fisker’s assembly plant in the United States.

Fisker is currently building its car, the Karma, in Finland, and has reportedly delivered around 250 cars to the United States.

These cars were built with Finnish workers and not U.S. workers who were supposed to benefit from DOE’s loans.

It’s no uncertain whether the GM plant will be renovated since some of the employees who were laid off were working on that project.

One has to wonder about a business plan that calls for building a $97,000 electric vehicle that few people can afford.

TSAugust

February 19, 2012

From Wikipedia, “Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterize a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991).”

This isn’t science, but is voodoo magic where opinion trumps the scientific method.

In science, if there are countervailing hypothesis, each is tested repeatedly until one or the other is proven to be true.

No one person or group can interfere with that process based on their opinions.

No “peer community” can declare that their opinions trump real science.

Post-normal science is a extraordinarily dangerous concept as it allows a large group to make declarations about how people live.

Post normal science tries to account for the unknowns that surround us in nature, by allowing opinion to prevail if enough people think the opinion is correct. It doesn’t eliminate the risk, and can lead to bad decisions.

Advocates of post normal science cannot accept that there are risks in everything we do, and attempt to assume that if enough people think something is true, then it must be true. Magically the risk is averted. Or is it.

Today, post normal science is trying to impose the view that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, while there is substantial scientific evidence that CO2 is a minor contributor to global warming.

If the true believers in post normal science are successful in imposing their will on society, it will result in millions of people being confined to poverty around the world. Eliminating CO2 emissions precludes the use of fossil fuels for which there are no adequate alternatives for generating electricity or providing low cost heat with natural gas. The use of coal, oil and natural gas will be prohibited. Poor people will have to continue to burn dung and wood to keep warm or to produce light. Automobiles will be pretty much a thing of the past, since there won’t be sufficient electricity for charging batteries.

Post normal science will say that wind and solar can produce all the energy we need, because their opinion says so -- yet science says it can’t.

Post-normal science is merely a way for one group to impose their opinions on the rest of the people who don’t agree.

TSAugust

February 12, 2012

Germany’s experience with sun power is an excellent example of why relying on solar energy is absurd.

Germany has spent over 100 billion dollars on solar energy, with devastating results.

Peak loads occur around 6 pm, when there is little or no sun, especially during the four months of winter. During the summer, when the sun is lower in the sky during evening peak loads, solar panels become inefficient.

While Germany has been cited as the poster child for sun power, new installations are falling behind recent history. This is because feed in tariffs are being lowered dramatically.

In 2011, homeowners with PV panels on their roofs and owners of solar farms collected about $10.2 billion. In spite of these huge subsidies solar made up only 3% of all the total power supply.

During the winter, Germany has had to import electricity from France and the Czech Republic in order to keep the lights on.

Under Germany's Renewable Energy Law, each new system qualifies for 20 years of subsidies. “A mountain of future payment obligations is beginning to take shape.”

TSAugust

February 5, 2012

EPA Issues List of CO2 Emitters

The EPA posted a list of major emitters of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. There are 6,157 facilities on the list.

Not surprisingly, the largest emitters are coal-fired power plants.

This continues the EPA’s war against coal.

Coal-fired power plants belonging to the Southern Company top the list.

The list can be found at the EPA Web Site of CO2 Emitters at http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do

It’s interesting to look at their map of emitters.

While industry only produces 20% of the nation’s emissions of CO2, they are prominent among the many locations emitting CO2.

Presumably, these companies are also in danger of being regulated by the EPA over their emissions of CO2. How will that affect jobs?

A sampling from the immediate Chicago area include:

TC Industries, PQ Corporation, Abbot Park Facility, Seymour of Sycamore, Woodland Recycling, Caterpillar Inc., VVF Illinois Services, Wheatland Prairie Recycling, Lamont Refinery, Argonne National Laboratory, John Sexton Sand and Gravel, Navistar, Loyola University Medical Center, Finkl & Sons, Vantage Oleo Chemicals, Kraft Foods Global Inc., Koppers Inc., Corn Products International, Electro-Motive Diesel, Blue Island Phenol LLC, CID Recycling, Arcel Ormittal Riverdale Inc., Horsehead Corp., Saint Gobain Containers Inc., Rhodia Inc., Victor Pipeline LP,. Stepan Co., Flint Hill Resources, Air Products and Chemicals, Exxon Mobile Oil Refinery, Aux Sable Liquid Products.

TSAugust

January 22, 2012

Sustainability; the New EPA Frontier

The EPA seeks to expand its authority by bypassing Congress with the concept that it should focus on Sustainability, not just environmental impact statements – Or that sustainability should be part of environmental impact statements.

Either way, the EPA is attempting to grab more power without the approval of Congress.

The study for which the EPA paid $700,000 said “Environmental impact assessment tends to focus primarily on the projected environmental effects of a particular action and alternatives to that action.” However, sustainability impact assessment examine “the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability”—  As a news article by George Russell noted this is “a greatly expanded approach.”

With a focus on sustainability, the EPA becomes involved in predicting the future.

It should be noted that sustainability is the theme of this year’s UN conference in Rio de Janeiro, which will attempt to put greater pressure on the United States to conform to the UN’s environmental wishes.

TSAugust

January 15, 2012

The advent of fracking can change the energy picture for the entire world. No longer will OPEC be the dominant player.

This is what fracking can accomplish, if environmentalists don’t stop fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing of shale is what is known as fracking.

Fracking is not without problems.

The disposal of waste water is a problem.

There have been temblors attributed to fracking, but these have been identified with injecting waste water into disposal wells rather than from fracking itself.  

It’s important to dispose of waste water in a safe manner, and this will be the norm regardless of any bad practices that might have occurred in the past.

Environmentalists claim that fracking can contaminate aquifers and water supplies, but when fracking is done at great distances from aquifers there is virtually no danger of contamination. Contamination of water supplies can occur if the natural gas wells are not properly constructed, but not from fracking.

Fracking is used to produce huge supplies of natural gas in the U.S. and possibly in Europe and China. It is also used for extracting oil from tight shale.

Fracking, in conjunction with oil from Canadian oil sands, can allow the U.S. to be essentially freed from dependence on Mideast oil.

TSAugust

January 8, 2012

TSAugust is a volunteer organization and doesn’t require large sums of money to operate.

We do accept contributions to cover operating expenses.

Contributions are tax deductable.

Operating expenses are for maintaining the web site, publishing articles or books, and office expenses such as for postage.

We pay no salaries.

We do not accept contributions from corporations and we do not employ fund raisers.

We do not seek or accept government grants.

Our mission is to provide factual information on energy issues to Americans.

We accept checks for any amount up to $500. Checks larger than $500 will be returned to the sender.

Please make your check payable to TSAugust and mail it to:

TSAugust

1856 Old Reston Avenue

Suite 205

Reston, VA 20190

Thank you.

TSAugust is a 501 (C) 3 tax exempt corporation.

To Top of Page

Copyright © 2002 - 2012 TSAugust