New Scientific Study Demolishes Liberal Climate Change Arguments

The coal industry in the U.S. has been on a downward trend for years. Coal production dropped 18% from 2015 to 2016, although production is expected to rise marginally in 2017 due to natural gas prices. In 2005 coal accounted for 50% of the electricity in this country and about 30% in 2016.

To sum it up, the use of coal in this country will probably continue to decline over the years. Trump definitely does not agree with global warming:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." 11/06/2012

"This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice." 1/1/2014

Source: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/

"Trump’s current position, as clarified by his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, in a 27 September 2016 interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, is that climate change exists but is “naturally occurring.”" Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

We should dump coal and substitute natural gas, we will all be warm, we will get cheap electricity, and the global warming situation will be addressed by significantly lowered CO2.

Everybody wins!

As I written before, President Obama wanted to do away with natural gas as it was not green enough. Somewhere during his first term "green" became "clean" and he started touting NG even though it puts out a lot of CO2.

Then Obama went on about building NG power plants and a "smart grid". Anyone know what happened? I mean other than coal fired electric plants shutting down and the price of electricity going through the roof?

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...r-power-plants

Oh yeah he lost a lot of Supreme Court battles because he made edicts without considering the underlying economic issues (among other things).

We should dump coal and substitute natural gas, we will all be warm, we will get cheap electricity, and the global warming situation will be addressed by significantly lowered CO2.

Everybody wins! Originally Posted by DSK

I agree. Nice response.

As I written before, President Obama wanted to do away with natural gas as it was not green enough. Somewhere during his first term "green" became "clean" and he started touting NG even though it puts out a lot of CO2.

Then Obama went on about building NG power plants and a "smart grid". Anyone know what happened? I mean other than coal fired electric plants shutting down and the price of electricity going through the roof?

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...r-power-plants

Oh yeah he lost a lot of Supreme Court battles because he made edicts without considering the underlying economic issues (among other things). Originally Posted by gnadfly

Shoo fly, more "fake news" ?

https://www.abqjournal.com/217723/ob...riticized.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...GIO/story.html

Here is an even better, middle of the road, unbiased link.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/...-in-september/ Originally Posted by DSK

Yea that link is like saying David Duke is a unbiased race expert!

You obviously did not read my link. Read about how they get data from ice core samples.

It is the warmest it has been in that part of the world in 800,000 years.

Yea that link is like saying David Duke is a unbiased race expert!

You obviously did not read my link. Read about how they get data from ice core samples.

It is the warmest it has been in that part of the world in 800,000 years. Originally Posted by WTF

I read your biased link, but it did have a nice advertisement for your gloryhole and dingleberry business....

I read your biased link, but it did have a nice advertisement for your gloryhole and dingleberry business.... Originally Posted by DSK

Sounds just like gay rey, you two shacking up now Jewish lawyer?

All the bailout money was wasted... Thanks 0zombies

THE SUN IS SETTING ON SOLAR POWER, THE MONEY’S GONE AND NOBODY’S ASKING ANY QUESTIONS.

https://thepointman.wordpress.com/20...any-questions/

Posted by Pointman on April 13, 2012


If you keep an eye on the financial world, which I do, and especially the green sectors, which I also do, it’s been an interesting time of late. Within the last few weeks, Solar Trust of America (STA), owner of the world’s largest solar plant, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, and nobody expects much of it, if anything, to emerge from it. STA joins a long list of companies in the solar energy sector, who’ve gone bankrupt, ducked into protection from their creditors, suspended production indefinitely or are simply circling the plughole.

Across the world, a few of the more prominent and expensive casualties are Solyndra, Solar Millennium AG, Energy Conversion Devices Inc, Q-Cells, Solon, Solar Millenium, Solarhybrid, Ener1, Range Fuels, Beacon Power Corp and there’s a whole lot of others. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s probably not a good idea to invest your hard-earned pennies in any company with “solar” in its name. It’s almost as bad a mistake as thinking you had some sort of long-term future employment with one of them.

Nearly all of these companies were the beneficiaries of huge government startup grants or loan guarantees. The products they made were effectively sold to consumers with a subsidy, to make them more attractive. The customers also had the benefit of some generous feed-in tariff schemes. All that money that was sunk into them has now gone and the specific green industry sector it was expected to create, is pretty much moribund.

In Germany, which gets the same amount of sunshine as the US state of Alaska and where inexplicably nearly half the solar power output of the world was installed, investment experts expect not a single solar cell company to be in business in five years time, since not one of them is currently showing an operating profit, nor is expected to do so in the foreseeable future. In Germany alone, the government have to date handed out about €100 billion in subsidies to renewable energy and even there, the most fervently green country in Europe, they’ve begun to have some serious doubts. It’s a money pit. The promised green jobs haven’t appeared and unemployment in the developed nations continues to rise. On a world-wide basis, the money wasted runs into the billions of dollars.

Billions and billions and we’ve ended up with pretty much nothing. Actually, that’s not quite correct. What we will have, within a decade or two, is a clear up job that’ll make Chernobyl look like a training day. As the vast arrays of panels age, they’ll crack and contaminate the topsoil with poisonous chemical particles. Take a careful look at the picture below, because that’s what we’ll have to pay to detoxify, and make no mistake, we’ll be the ones paying, despite a few of the companies installing these panels having given undertakings to dispose of the panels at the end of their service life. The hard-nosed investor in me reckons they’ll be safely bankrupt by the time any such expensive undertakings have to be honoured.

I wonder where we will store all that contaminated topsoil? Perhaps wherever we’d planned to store nuclear waste, before we decided not to build any more nuclear plants.


Why are they going bust? The usual reasons given are that there’s too many companies in the solar energy industry and that subsidies are being cut by the governments. Let’s take a hard financial look at these excuses.

Too many companies chasing the same buck. All of them were in receipt of government grants and loan guarantees. Solyndra alone cost the US government 500 million USD in loan guarantees and it looks like the blood-letting over STA could reach 2 billion USD. Even in the loony world of state funding of renewables, I would expect an application, with an attached business case, was submitted to the relevant department handing out the taxpayer’s money. At the time, it should have been blindingly obvious that there simply wasn’t enough business for them all. That’s the first basic question you ask when considering any development loan request from a company.

It was the classic stampede of new startup companies rushing in to fill a new business sector, followed by the inevitable shakeout, the only difference being that it’s not the minnows going bust. Who exactly approved the applications? Why on earth did they? Has anyone gone back and reviewed the veracity of the statements made in the original applications? Is there anyone, anywhere, seriously looking into where the money went?

As far as I’m aware, in any substantial sense, the answer to all those questions is no.

Subsides being cut; that’s true but then, they were never supposed to last forever. They were part of larger stimulus packages, which were only supposed to get those businesses up and running. If the business proposals and revenue projections were correct, all those companies should have been running profitably by now. They patently weren’t, so pretty much the same questions arise and with the same answer – nobody is asking any questions.
The business case for the whole industry was supported by numerous studies by scientists, academia, so-called industry experts and advocates of renewable energy, all of whom said it was the clean and profitable future of energy production.

Obviously, all those studies were seriously wrong and ended up costing governments billions. Has anyone got back to these “experts” and asked why the studies and their financial models were all so bad? Given how shoddy their expert advice has proven to be, is anyone asking for the money back, which we paid for this supposed expertise? In the light of how bad expert advice in this area has been, is anyone reviewing advice for similar green sectors, such as wind power? Anyone? Anywhere?

Never in the history of the world, has such an amount of money been wasted, without any trace of financial oversight or accountability. Not only has the money been squandered, but at a time of high unemployment, the fashionable rush to create illusory green jobs, has actually destroyed jobs in the real economy. A study in Spain concluded that for every green job created by their massive renewables investment, the real economy lost 2.2 real jobs and only one in ten of those green jobs created, will be permanent. The much touted transfer of jobs from the real economy to the green economy simply never occurred either. Similar studies in Britain, Canada and Scotland have come back with equally appalling numbers. Spain was one of the early ones to dive head first into the green clean energy dream and now has an unemployment rate of 21%.

President Obama pledged a 150 billion USD investment over the next decade, to create a promised 5 million green jobs but nearly half way through that period, the number of green jobs created is so pitiful, the numbers are already being “massaged.” Apparently, if you drive a hybrid powered bus, you’re officially classified as having a green job. Bart should tell that to Otto the next time he climbs on the school bus – I think Otto will be kinda pleased about that.

Energy produced from renewables, such as solar power, is at least ten times more expensive than conventional sources, so the only way it can be afforded, is if you heap on various direct and indirect stealth taxes on those conventional sources to subsidise it.

The macroeconomic impact of the resultant rise in energy prices is on enterprise. Once the cost of energy and regulation rises to a certain price point, it’s simply a no brainer to relocate the company to a more business friendly environment, either out-of-state or out-of-country. A classic case is California, where commercial electrical rates are already 50% higher than in any other state in the Union. Because of recently enacted state legislation and the upcoming “California Global Warming Solutions Act”, it’s estimated that an additional hike in energy prices of between 19% to 74%, dependent on your location in California, will occur in the next decade.

Companies have been relocating, in whole or in part, out of California. It’s a bit like the California gold rush of 1849, but in reverse; everyone is getting the hell out of the place. In the first quarter of last year alone, one business relocater counted 70 of these “disinvestment events”, as they’re euphemistically called, and that in a state with a 10.9% unemployment rate and some very severe budgetary problems.

Another effect of this rise in energy prices, is to push more and more ordinary people into what’s now called fuel poverty and as usual, it’s the poor and low wage earners, who are taking the pain. What hard statistics I can find on the number of people now priced into this situation, are quite simply appalling.
The only country, for which I can find official national statistics on fuel poverty, is the UK but whatever country you live in, I imagine the figures might be similar, dependant on your climate and how far your government has gone down the renewable’s rabbit hole.

The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) latest report in July 2011, which only gives figures up to 2009, estimated that 18% of UK households were then officially classified as being in fuel poverty. The UK Citizen’s Advice Bureau, again a guesstimate circa 2009, is concerned that 5.5 million people in UK face living in freezing conditions through Winter, because of self-rationing or disconnection. Given the steep jump in domestic power prices over the last three years, the figure must now be well over 25%. When it comes to any of DECC’s numbers, it’s interesting to note that they attribute the increase to several factors, but never once do they mention green taxes, which is why I view even the dire figures supplied by them with some suspicion, as being too conservative.

Mr. Cameron, here we are in the twenty-first century and in a quarter of households in the UK, the people you’re supposed to be responsible for, are having to make stark choices between food and heating as a result of your continuing policies and the policies of your predecessors. And that, in the teeth of the worst recession in living memory. I know with your background of Eton, Oxford, millionaire status and coming from a rich and privileged background, it’s perhaps difficult for you to appreciate the hardships that choices like that inflict on ordinary people.

You’ve never spent a Winter just being cold, so let me help you out and give you an idea of what it’s like. It’s pensioners, who spend most of Winter in bed for warmth, because they can no longer afford to heat their home, it’s families wearing overcoats indoors, it’s kids trying to do homework when their hands are freezing, it’s Dad’s overcoat thrown over the sleeping kids in an unheated bedroom as an extra blanket, it’s the sickly ones of all ages really suffering through Winter, it’s months of coughs and colds and chilblains, it’s the cold-related deaths that never should have happened and it’s just basically plain miserable. As usual, the biggest proportion of people in poverty, fuel or otherwise, are always the children. Are you starting to get some sort of idea of what it’s like outside the slick and well-heated political circles of London?

You could at least take your foot off the green taxation pedal and help them out but you won’t though, will you? Saving the planet is simply too important to ever contemplate doing anything like that. Quite frankly, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you’re a bloody disgrace.

Governments wasting vast amounts of taxpayer’s money on financially absurd projects is always bad but if the net effect of doing so, is to impoverish and harm their own most vulnerable citizens, then it’s unforgivable.

All the bailout money was wasted... Thanks 0zombies

THE SUN IS SETTING ON SOLAR POWER, THE MONEY’S GONE AND NOBODY’S ASKING ANY QUESTIONS.

https://thepointman.wordpress.com/20...any-questions/ Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I quote the following article: "The U.S. solar market had its biggest year ever in 2016, nearly doubling its previous record and adding more electric generating capacity than any other source of energy for the first time ever.

Over the next five years, the cumulative U.S. solar market is expected to nearly triple in size, even as a slight dip is expected in 2017. GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) announced these historic figures today in the U.S. Solar Market Insight 2016 Year-in-Review report."

http://www.seia.org/news/us-solar-ma...ext-five-years

And a quote from another article:

"Global solar energy market size was estimated at over USD 65 billion in 2015 and is likely to exceed USD 140 billion by 2023."

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-...-energy-market

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hina-uk-europe

SLOBBRIN, you need to leave this country.

Everything about it sucks ... except the part that allows you to stay, right.?

Even where the technology has been embraced most enthusiastically, such as in Europe, solar on average provides 4% of electricity demand.

its a small market for something that generates so much billions.

iffy's article is more concerned with the companies in the solar market than the solar market itself.

you have these companies not making profit and going bankrupt over time. I guess its saying once the solar herd is culled out, they'll be fewer companies and they'll be making profits.

the solar market is really not sustainable without the help of subsidies.

its likely the speed of the solar market penetration would be slower without govt. subsidies.

EPA is going to have their work cut out when those solar units retire. Superfund sites galore!

I quote the following article: "The U.S. solar market had its biggest year ever in 2016, nearly doubling its previous record and adding more electric generating capacity than any other source of energy for the first time ever.

Over the next five years, the cumulative U.S. solar market is expected to nearly triple in size, even as a slight dip is expected in 2017. GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) announced these historic figures today in the U.S. Solar Market Insight 2016 Year-in-Review report."

http://www.seia.org/news/us-solar-ma...ext-five-years

And a quote from another article:

"Global solar energy market size was estimated at over USD 65 billion in 2015 and is likely to exceed USD 140 billion by 2023."

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-...-energy-market

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hina-uk-europe Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Those seemed like pro solar industry articles. Not much chance, in my opinion, they will really last in the Texas heat and hail for more than 10 years, and it takes alot of energy and CO2 to make the panels. Then, they damn things and their toxic chemicals have to be disposed of responsibly.

The only place for solar besides remote installations is utility scale hot oil.

People often omit time value of money in the payback calculations.

Those seemed like pro solar industry articles. Not much chance, in my opinion, they will really last in the Texas heat and hail for more than 10 years, and it takes alot of energy and CO@ to make the panels. Then, they damn things and their toxic chemicals have to be disposed of responsibly.

The only place for solar besides remote installations is utility scale hot oil. Originally Posted by DSK

I can't argue with you. A FaceBook friend of mine in N.Y. installed solar panels last year and says his electric bills dropped dramatically. Dilbert is correct in that he was given a great deal of financial incentives to make the move to solar.

A friend of mine here in Texas looked into installing solar panels on his house and believes that by the time the break-even point was reached, he would be long gone. And he is younger than I am.

I remember reading an article where somebody built a solar farm, and these mirrors were aimed at a specific spot that generated something like 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

you can create way more energy with a boiler with that.

I think it has another use, a smelting plant to melt metals.

I read your biased link, but it did have a nice advertisement for your gloryhole and dingleberry business.... Originally Posted by DSK

Did you read þhis part?



Ice Cores

Antarctica has ice that is up to 4700m thick. This ice preserves a record of the conditions at the time it was frozen, of the amounts of gases in the atmosphere and an indication of the temperature. The deeper you drill, the further back in time you go.
Research into ice cores show that current atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane gas levels (both greenhouse gases) are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase of these gases is faster than any likely to have happened in the recent geological past. This 800,000 year record came from a 3km long ice core