Energy

How infrasound from wind turbines can cause cancer

This article from the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions reviews several research studies that show infrasound from wind turbines can cause cancer. Read the full paper at http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Health/LFN_and_Cancer.pdf

Here is an introduction:

Recently, President Trump made a statement about the possibility of wind turbine noise causing cancer. Predictably much of the press scoffed at this claim. Even some Republican legislators objected. But what are the facts?
Since this is a technical matter, let’s clarify some basics… Infrasound is Low Frequency Noise (LFN)… Industrial wind turbines generate substantial LFN… A variety of wind turbine LFN caused human and animal health problems have been well-documented (see this small sample of studies)… But what about cancers?
The medical term genotoxins is separated into three main groups: carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens (i.e. toxins that cause cancer, genetic mutations, or birth defects)… LFN has been identified as a genotoxic agent of disease, capable of inducing blood vessel wall thickening as seen in autopsy, as well as through light and electron microscopy studies. This can lead to well known consequences such as tumor development, cardiac infarcts and/or the need for cardiac bypass surgery. The pathology caused by excessive exposure to LFN is termed vibroacoustic disease (VAD), and has been diagnosed among several occupational and environmentally exposed populations.
To read about other health problems see: Health Hazards of Wind Turbines  
Advertisements

The People for the West newsletter for April, 2019

The People for the West newsletter for April, 2019 is now online:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2019-archive/2019-14-April/

Earth Day is recognized in April each year. In view of recent predictions that the world will end in 12 years unless we get rid of fossil fuels and completely revise our economic system, it is well to review the track record of past predictions.

Other subjects include:

Brainwashing children to shill for bad science

Why Fossil Fuels Are Good for U.S. National Security

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

Green New Deal Would Barely Change Earth’s Temperature. Here Are the Facts.

The unintended consequences of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s global warming crusade are hitting close to home—literally.

 

Enjoy,

Jonathan

The Dangerous Ignorance of the Green New Deal

The energy portion of the utopian “Green New Deal” would require the U.S. to shift to 100% renewable energy by 2035. Such a proposal shows a profound and dangerous ignorance of how things work. Let’s examine just one aspect of this. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is quoted as saying: “Our energy future will not be found in the dark of a mine but in the light of the sun.”

Some simple questions for you Ed: Where will we get all the materials needed to construct the solar panels and wind turbines? Might they have to be mined? Might the metals and other materials used to build the equipment to manufacture the solar panels and wind turbines have to be mined? Might the copper for distribution lines have to be mined? By the way, electric cars use five times more copper than traditional fossil-fuel powered cars.

Manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines require mining minerals that currently are unavailable in the quantities required for this transition to 100% renewable energy. The U.S. is 100% dependent on imports from China, Russia and other countries of rare-earth elements used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines. (Note: many of these elements do occur in the western states of the U.S. on federal land, but environmentalists and federal regulations prevent mining.)

Solar and wind are not as “green” as advertized. For instance:

Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. (Source) PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. Nitrogen trifluoride, used in the manufacturing of solar panels, is a powerful greenhouse gas with a “global warming potential” of 17,200 times that of carbon dioxide. (Source)

Wind turbines chop up birds and bats and also affect human health due to the low frequency vibration.

Both utility-scale solar and wind installations use much more land than do similar capacity fossil-fuel generation stations, and thereby degrade the local environment.

The utopian “Green New Deal” if implemented, may become the dystopian green deal.

 

Related articles:

The “Green New Deal” Will Send US Back to the Dark Ages

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

Why Replacing Fossil-fuel Generation of Electricity with Solar or Wind Is Dangerous

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

 

Note to readers:

The Tale of a Texas Town on 100% Renewable Energy

Seven years ago, the city fathers of Georgetown, Texas, decided that the town should rely on 100% renewable energy for its electricity needs. Georgetown is a small college town (pop. 71,000) about 25 miles north of Austin, Texas.

The town obtained long-term (20 years), fixed-cost contracts with a solar company and a wind company to provide electricity. The contracts were to buy nearly 900,000 Mwh per year. Georgetown’s average annual consumption is about 575,000 MWh with a peak of 145 MW, but they were thinking of future expansion. They could always sell the excess on the Texas energy market. Georgetown did remain connected to the Texas energy grid so they could buy electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear in case the unreliable solar and wind generation failed.

But the shale revolution hit. Natural gas prices decreased and made electricity cheaper, but Georgetown was locked into higher contracted prices. They also had to sell the excess contracted electricity on the open market at a loss. This caused the city budget to run multimillion dollar deficits. Guess who paid? Georgetown residents are now paying electric bills of more than $1,000 extra per year. Had the city remained on the state grid, the residents would be paying electric rates lower than they originally paid before the city got “100% renewable” energy.

Read more from Forbes.

See also:

The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

The “Green New Deal” Will Send US Back to the Dark Ages

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” -Bertrand Russell

The “Green New Deal” promotes an energy policy and tried-and-failed social programs that will, by some estimates, cost $49 trillion during the first 10 years. (Cost estimate source) The National Review estimates that 5.8 million jobs would be eliminated under the Green New Deal. (Source)

The energy portion of the deal is based upon a profound ignorance and misunderstanding of how the climate system works. For example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims: “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change…” Promoters of utility-scale renewable energy, which probably would not exist without government mandates and subsidies, take advantage of that ignorance. (See Renewable Energy Subsidies Costly to Taxpayers, Benefit Big Companies)

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute gives us the “highlights” of energy policy under the Green New Deal:

First, keep it in the ground by halting all fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and offshore areas; halting all permitting of fossil-fuel power plants, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects; banning fossil-fuel exports; and ending “massive, irrational subsidies” for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, waste incineration, and biomass energy.

Second, “the United States must shift to 100% renewable power by 2035 or earlier.” Large-scale hydro-electric power, biomass, and waste-to-energy do not qualify.

Third, public transport using renewable power only must be vastly expanded; sales of vehicles powered by gas and diesel engines must be banned as quickly as possible; and all such vehicles must be off the roads by 2040 at the latest. Of course, “federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.”

Fourth, Congress should “harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.” I’m not sure what more can be done to turn the economy upside down, but I may be missing something.

 Fifth, this must be a “just transition.” This will require “support for communities who (sic) have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy,” as well as “retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy” and “actively restoring natural ecosystems.”

 Sixth, the rights of indigenous peoples must be fully protected, although it’s not clear whether Native Americans will be allowed to develop coal, oil, and natural gas resources on their lands. My guess is they’ll be able to apply for compensation.

 Finally, the Green New Deal must not protect fossil fuel producers from legal liability and cannot include “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, [or] carbon capture and storage.”

 It should be called the Back to the Dark Ages Manifesto. (link to original article)

All aspects of living require energy, and hydrocarbons provide 80% of America’s energy, more for the rest of the world. A government-mandated transition to 100% renewable energy would completely destroy the U.S. industrial base and cause lights to go out in millions of households across the country. This energy transition alone could cost $5.2 trillion, while greatly increasing your energy costs.(Source)

Read these articles to see why the energy portion of the Green New Deal is so stupid:

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Why Replacing Fossil-fuel Generation of Electricity with Solar or Wind Is Dangerous

The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

 

The Green New Deal is not just about energy, it contains most of the old (and failed) socialist utopian policies such as free education through college, guaranteed jobs, free medical care. Read the list as complied by the Green Party.

All this free stuff will put the government in full control of your life, and cost only $49 trillion for the first 10 years. (Source)

According to Justin Haskins, Fox News:

The Green New Deal would dramatically reshape the U.S. economy and add tens of trillions of dollars to the national debt.

The radical plan would force families to pay more to heat, cool and provide electricity to their homes. It would raise the same costs for businesses, farmers, government and organizations, driving up their operating costs – and raising the prices for just about all the good and services Americans buy.

Under the Green New Deal, Americans would have to power their homes with renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. Every home and business in the United States would have to be “upgraded” for “state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” And a slew of massive government social programs and mandates would be created.

In addition to the energy provisions of the Green New Deal that have received the most attention from left-wing pundits and radical environmentalists, there is a lot of important information related to this proposal that proponents have deliberately kept out of the spotlight.

Here are five of the most important things you need to know about the Green New Deal.

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so-called “green” energy.

2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.

3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.

4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handouts to left-wing special interest groups and industries.

5. It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars. Read more

 

“The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” —Thomas Jefferson (1802)

A Cautionary Tale from Great Britain

Green Deal fiasco:

By Tom Kelly, Investigations Editor for the Daily Mail

Thousands of homeowners face rip-off energy bills for decades after being ‘scammed’ into joining a state-backed £400million eco-energy scheme that ‘utterly failed’.

The Green Deal – which ministers trumpeted as the ‘biggest home improvement programme since the Second World War’ – was abandoned after two years as MPs admitted it had been a ‘complete fiasco’ that brought almost no environmental benefits.

But more than three years after its collapse, families remain trapped repaying loans of up to £21,000 which they unwittingly took out for solar panels, replacement boilers and insulation. The repayments are added to monthly utility bills which in some cases have quadrupled once the loans were added to the cost of their usual fuel and will take more than 20 years to pay back.

In some of the worst cases, the scheme was allowed to be ruthlessly exploited by Government-approved ‘gangster companies’ who conned the elderly and vulnerable, including those with dementia, MPs told the Commons. Read more

‘Green New Deal’ Relies on Minerals Environmentalists Won’t Allow Us to Mine
By Ann Bridges, The Heartland Institute
The Green New Deal proposes a massive expansion in the use of renewable energy technologies that rely on critical minerals we are not allowed to mine in the United States.

FACTS: Green renewable energy requires literally tons of minerals that currently are unavailable in the quantities required for this transition. Of course, the GND includes no plan for additional mining to supply this broad initiative.

FACTS: The Green New Deal’s website also says one of its goals is ending wars, which will supposedly “become obsolete” when fossil fuels are no longer used. If the advocates of the GND wish to limit the threat of war, then the United States needs to become mineral-independent in the same fashion it is now energy-independent.

FACTS: Another goal of the Green New Deal is to electrify U.S. transportation. Electric vehicles (EVs) use up to five times more copper than traditional, fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. California’s new edict to have five million EVs on the road by 2030 will require 750 million pounds of copper. Read more

Another Thing: 

Green New Deal Strengthens Russia and China

By hitting the U.S. military with deep cuts, “saving the planet” could have a dangerous result. Read article

The Broken Greenhouse – why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

Climate has been changing for about four billion years in cycles large and small. Climate will continue to change no matter what humans do or don’t do.

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the major bogeyman of our time. As H.L. Mencken wrote: “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” As we will see below, neither increasing carbon dioxide emissions nor reducing such emissions will have a significant effect on global warming.

Even the UN IPCC admits that the climate change bogeyman is about money and power, not the environment. The real goal of UN climate propaganda: “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.” – UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth” — Ottmar Edenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The real goal is one-world government.

Let’s review the “greenhouse effect” to see if carbon dioxide is really a major factor in controlling global climate.

We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which absorbs almost all wavelengths of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation, three of which are also absorbed by water vapor. Other minor greenhouse gases are oxygen and ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Once a particular wavelength becomes saturated, i.e., almost completely absorbed, additional quantities of greenhouse gases have no effect.

Even the IPCC agrees that the hypothetical capacity of carbon dioxide to change temperature is given by the formula: △Tc = αln(C2/C1), where △Tc is the change in temperature in degrees Centigrade and the term ln(C2/C1) is the natural logarithm of the CO2 concentration at time two divided by the concentration at time one. The constant α (alpha) is sometimes called the sensitivity and its value is subject to debate. This relationship was proposed by Svante August Arrhenius, a physicist and chemist, around 1896. This logarithmic formula produces a graph in the form shown below. This shows that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, it has less and less influence. This graph is the pure theoretical capacity of carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere in absence of any confounding feedbacks. The different curves represent different values of sensitivity.

 

Carbon dioxide is currently about 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. Yet this nearly negligible amount is touted as the main driver of global temperature. Notice that even at the highest sensitivity on the chart, doubling carbon dioxide from 400ppm to 800ppm results in a theoretical rise in temperature of only slightly more than 1°C – nothing to worry about.

The climate system consists of two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and the oceans) interacting with each other. As the IPCC rightly says in its Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” The claim that one minor variable acts as the major control knob is absurd.

In the graph, the numbers shown in parentheses are the estimated temperature increase from quadrupling carbon dioxide concentration. Many climate models use much higher values for the sensitivity. That’s why most climate models run much hotter than measured temperatures. Recent research suggests that sensitivity could be as low as -0.03°C, i.e., cooling. (Source)

The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate analogy because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis deals only with heat transfer by radiation and completely ignores convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer (weather) puts many holes in the “blanket” of carbon dioxide. The “greenhouse” is effectively broken.

I have often heard it claimed that without the “greenhouse effect” Earth would be an iceball. Well, it ain’t necessarily so. There is an alternate hypothesis of what warms the atmosphere and this alternative is supported by physical evidence.

Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. This happens regardless of atmosphere composition. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Physical evidence supports this hypothesis. See more of this story here: What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

The “greenhouse” hypothesis of global warming is not supported by physical evidence, see:

A simple question for climate alarmists – where is the evidence.

On the other hand, there are several lines of physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions do not intensify the “greenhouse effect” see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The global push for renewable energy generation of electricity is based on the false premise that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to forestall dangerous warming. How much warming is dangerous? The IPCC says 2°C is dangerous. They are ignoring the Cretaceous Period when global temperature was at least10°C warmer and the Paleocene-Eocene when temperatures were up to 19°C warmer. (link) The IPCC’s arbitrary 2ºC (3.6ºF) “tipping point” has no basis in science. In fact, during the last 10,000 years, the temperature has cycled several times through warm and cool periods of 2ºC or more.

See also:

Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential “Savings” in Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise(link)

This paper shows that if Arizona stops all carbon dioxide emissions it could possibly prevent a rise in temperature of 0.0029°C by 2100. If the entire U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could prevent a temperature rise of 0.172°C by 2100.

More Evidence Water Vapor Is Dominant Influence on Temperatures (link)

This article by meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains how water vapor moderates temperature.

Much of the climate scaremongering is based on climate models. Climate models are complex mathematical constructs, not physical evidence. But the atmosphere is even more complex, so modelers must ignore many variables such as Sun-Earth relationships and clouds, in favor of a few basic parameters. The fundamental assumption of climate models is that changes in CO2 concentration drives temperature change, but evidence from geology and astronomy show that the relationship is just the opposite. Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentration because temperature controls CO2 solubility in the oceans.

CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas 

Article by Dr. Tim Ball: The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist? (Water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gas.)

For Arizona voters – Let’s Finish the Job and Repeal Arizona’s Existing Renewable Energy Mandate

In the November election, Arizona voters rightly and overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 127 which would have established an amendment to the Arizona Constitution requiring that 50 percent of electricity be generated from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. We need to finish the job and get the Arizona legislature to repeal the existing 15 percent renewable energy mandate imposed upon us by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in 2006.

In 2013, I wrote an article outlining why this mandate is very bad policy, see:

Five reasons Arizona should repeal its renewable energy standards mandate.

Here is a brief summary of those reasons:

1) Electricity generated from solar and wind is much more expensive than conventional generation. That expense is reflected in higher electricity bills. My current bill from Tucson Electric Power shows “surcharges” directly attributable to the mandate totaling an extra $230 per year. I expect those charges to double as we transition from the current 7 percent renewables to the mandated 15 percent. The ACC itself estimated that, through 2025, the mandate would cost consumers $1.2 billion more than they would have paid for conventional energy sources.

2) Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, unpredictable, and unreliable. The electric grid is the lifeblood of modern civilization. Solar and wind generation can make the grid unstable and unreliable.

3) Because generation from renewable energy sources is intermittent and unpredictable, these sources require backup generation which is usually by burning fossil fuels. Experience in Europe shows that backup generators actually use more fuel and produce more carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants such as sulfur dioxide than they normally would if they were run efficiently for primary generation.

4) Use of renewable energy will not impact climate. If Arizona stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.0014°C by 2050. (source)

5) Finally, renewable energy is not as green as advertized.

The manufacturing and disposal processes for solar panels put several dangerous chemicals into the environment. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats. Wind turbines also have deleterious effects on human health, see: Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

Petition the Arizona legislature to end the mandate.

Article 15 of the Arizona Constitution deals with the ACC. Perhaps section 6 of that article provides a means for the legislature to rescind the mandate. It reads:

Section 6. The law-making power may enlarge the powers and extend the duties of the corporation commission, and may prescribe rules and regulations to govern proceedings instituted by and before it; but, until such rules and regulations are provided by law, the commission may make rules and regulations to govern such proceedings. [my emphasis]

Perhaps the legislature could pass a law that says: The ACC shall not mandate the method by which electricity is generated in Arizona. Any and all existing mandates are hereby rescinded and declared null and void.

 

Such a law does not mean that electric companies can’t use renewable energy. It just means that government bureaucrats can’t tell them they must.

The Arizona legislature reconvenes in mid January. Between now and then, please contact your state senator and two state representatives and urge them to repeal the ACC mandate.

To find contact information for your state legislators:

First find your Arizona legislative districthttps://azredistricting.org/districtlocator/

You will have to type in your address or zip code. This site will show both your federal congressional district number and your Arizona legislative district number.

Find an alphabetical list of members of the legislature (with phone numbers and email address):

https://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster/

Scroll down the list until you find the legislators in your district.

To send a message from the roster:

You can click on the name in the 4th column to get to a message form. Or to send an email directly, use the name in the 4th column on the list and add: @azleg.gov

For regular mail, use this address: Legislator name, Arizona State Senate (or House of Representatives), 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

We should rely upon the free market and let utility companies generate electricity by the method they see as most efficient, cost effective, and reliable. Most renewable energy sources are none of those things.

 

Harvard study shows that wind power could cause more warming than coal

As reported by James Temple in the MIT Technology Review:

A new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems.

The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 °C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 °C.

“If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has—in some respects—more climate impact than coal or gas,” coauthor David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, said in a statement. “If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas.”

The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming. The new research suggests we can’t put too many turbines to close together or the whole group become far less efficient. That means we need 5 – 20 times as much land as previously thought (at least as thought by academics) Read more

Why You Should Vote NO on Arizona Proposition 127, the renewable energy mandate (Update)

Proposition 127 is very bad policy because: 1) wind and solar generation of electricity are both expensive and unreliable; 2) wind and solar generation can be dangerous to wildlife, human health, and the environment; and 3) the perceived need for more wind and solar generation is based on the false assumption that carbon dioxide emissions are a major cause of global warming.

The method of generating electricity should not be determined by one-size-fits-all government mandates, but rather by local market conditions and resources.

In the following summary I explain the problems with renewable energy. More background is available in the references at the end of this post.

Arizona proposition 127, dubbed “The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Amendment” will amend the Arizona Constitution to require affected electric utilities generate at least 50% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The amendment defines renewable energy sources to include solar, wind, small-scale hydropower, and other sources that are replaced rapidly by a natural, ongoing process (excluding nuclear or fossil fuel). Distributed renewable energy sources, like rooftop solar, must comprise at least 10% of utilities’ annual retail sales of electricity by 2030. The Amendment allows electric utilities to earn and trade credits to meet these requirements. (Read full text)

Arizona currently produces half of its renewable energy from hydropower generated at the large dams on the Colorado River, but, according to the proposed amendment, this electricity is not to be counted toward the 50% mandated goal. According to the Energy Information Administration, power plants in Arizona generate more electricity than the state consumes, and Arizona generating stations supply electricity to consumers throughout the southwest.

 

Expensive:

Promoters of proposition 127 claim that (based on computer modeling) more renewable energy generation will decrease the price of electricity. The computer model claims that “average electricity bills in 2030 would be three dollars a month lower if Arizona pursues a high-renewables future, and five dollars a month lower in 2040.”

Contrary to claims of proposition promoters, real-world experience shows that the price of electricity can triple as the percentage of wind and solar generation increases. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Arizona’s existing 7 percent renewable power mandate (on its way up to 15%) cost the average Arizona household $304 in higher electricity charges in 2017. At 50 percent renewables, as required by prop. 127, that could rise to an additional $2,179 per year compared to present electricity costs. (Source: The Heartland Institute) Higher electricity rates disproportionally impact the poor. (See this story)

My own electric bill from Tucson Electric Power is running at the rate of an extra charge of $230 per year due to the renewable energy mandate. A curious thing: These charges used to be listed on the bill as “Green Energy Charges” but since March, 2017, they are listed merely as “Surcharges.”

Electricity produced by wind and solar turns out to be much more expensive than electricity produced from coal and natural gas. That is mainly because wind and solar are unreliable, they can’t respond to demand. Therefore they need nuclear or fossil fuel generated electricity as backup which causes the fossil fuel plants to run inefficiently which is more expensive (and produces more carbon dioxide).

Europe has been a world leader in using wind and solar energy. The price, however, is high. Real operational data show that the more installed solar and wind capacity per capita a country has, the higher the price people pay for electricity. (Source) In some European countries electricity prices are triple the average cost in the U.S. Ironically, carbon dioxide emissions in those countries are rising while in the U.S. emissions are decreasing. Also ironically, according to the New York Times, renewables are helping to push nuclear power, the main source of zero-emissions electricity in the United States, into bankruptcy.

Australia has been flirting with replacing coal generation with renewables. Australian engineers warn 55% renewables will add $1400 to electricity bills, an 84% increase in electricity rates. (Source) The state of South Australian generates about 50 percent of its electricity from wind and solar power. South Australia’s consumer electricity prices are the highest in the world and electric reliability is one of the worst in the developed world. (Source)

California: According to Environmental Progress, a pro-nuclear advocacy group:

Between 2011 and 2017, California’s electricity prices rose five times faster than they did nationally. Today, Californians pay 60 percent more, on average, than the rest of the nation, for residential, commercial, and industrial electricity. California’s high penetration of intermittent renewables such as solar and wind are likely a key factor in higher prices. (LinkHad California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would already have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

study by the left-of-center Brookings Institution found replacing conventional power with wind power raises electricity prices 50 percent, and replacing conventional power with solar power triples electricity costs.

From the Brookings report:

Costs are much higher for three reasons. First, the cost per MW [megawatt] of capacity to build a wind or solar plant is quite high (and much greater than that of a gas-fired plant). The cost per MW of solar capacity is especially high. Reductions in the cost of solar-voltaic panels have reduced the cost of building a solar plant by 22 percent between 2010 and 2012, but further reductions are likely to have a lesser effect because the cost of solar panels is only a fraction of the total cost of a utility-scale solar plant.

Second, a wind or solar plant operates at full capacity only a fraction of the time, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. For example, a typical solar plant in the United States operates at only about 15 percent of full capacity and a wind plant only about 25 percent of full capacity, while a coal plant can operate 90 percent of full capacity on a year-round basis.

Third, the output of wind and solar plants is highly variable—year by year, month by month, day by day and hour by hour—compared to a coal-fired plant… Thus more than six solar plants and four wind plants are required to produce the same output with the same degree of reliability as a coal-fired plant of the same capacity.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. They conclude: “As a means of producing useful electrical power, wind and solar are very expensive generating technologies because of their low capacity factors and because of their non-dispatchability and intermittency.” (Source)

It has been proposed that the intermittency problem with wind and solar can be solved by battery storage. But an MIT Technology Review article says that would be too expensive: “The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.” The $2.5 trillion battery system would provide just 12 hours of storage for the entire U.S. (Link)

Dangerous:

Utility scale wind and solar installations require vast expanses of land that affect local habitats. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats, including endangered species. Solar installations burn up birds and other flying animals. Low frequency sound from wind turbines causes a variety of human ailments. The manufacturing and disposal of solar panels put dangerous chemicals into the environment. For example, many PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. Does that sound like “clean energy”?

recent study shows that solar modules cause more greenhouse gas emissions than modern coal power plants. It turns out that because of the emissions of extraordinarily potent greenhouse gases nitrogen trifluoride and sulfur hexafluoride and energy requirements of manufacturing solar modules, solar energy ends up being worse for the climate than burning coal.

(See references 5 & 6)

Another danger is that proposition 127 is intended to be an amendment to the Arizona Constitution rather than a statute. It will therefore be much harder to repeal once its utter folly is realized.

The false assumption:

The push for renewable energy, especially wind and solar generation, is based on the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are a significant cause of global warming.

This claim is not based on physical evidence but only upon garbage-in, garbage-out computer models, the results of which diverge widely from observations. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the major promoter of the human-caused global warming scare. Yet, in five major reports, the IPCC does not provide any physical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions play a significant role in global warming. I have asked several university climate scientists who support the claim to cite supporting physical evidence. Although they are alleged experts in the field, they could not cite any physical evidence. They devolve to computer modeling. On the other hand, there are several lines of physical evidence that show carbon dioxide emissions do not enhance the dread greenhouse effect. (See references 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 & 9) Many scientific studies present physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide is but a bit player among the many factors influencing climate change. (See these references: link)

A report from the Science and Public Policy Institute estimates the temperature savings theoretically obtained by stopping all carbon dioxide emissions for each state and for the U.S. as a whole. According to SPPI, if Arizona stopped all carbon dioxide emissions, it would theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.0014°C by 2050 and 0.0029°C by 2100. If the U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions, it would theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.172°C by 2100. (Link to report) Do you think that’s worth the higher electricity prices and disruption of the electric grid?

In the entire geological history of the planet, there has been no known linkage between CO2 and temperatures other than that temperature controls the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. (See reference 8) The war on carbon dioxide tries to cure a problem that does not exist.

Generating more electricity from solar and wind is just a very expensive exercise in political correctness that will have little impact on carbon dioxide emissions, but a big impact on your wallet, and an adverse impact on electric grid stability and the environment. (See reference 7) If you really want low/no emissions generation of electricity, we should invest in more nuclear generation which is always there when you need it.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

Note: This article is based upon my own observations and research. I have had no dealings with any of the several PACs organized for or against the proposition. This article may be reprinted provided credit is given to the author and link back to the original.

References:

1. A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists

2. Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

3. Failure of climate models shows that carbon dioxide does not drive global temperature

4. Health Effects of global warming on humans

5. Avian mortality from solar farms

6. Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

7. The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

8. An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

9. What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

10. Audit of main temperature database used by IPCC finds multiple errors

 

Climate Madness 12, California is craziest

Climate on this planet has been changing all by itself for about four billion years. Now, either through ignorance or presumed political advantage, some politicians think they can stop climate change. That policy represents the real danger of global warming. Their magic formula is to stop carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Instead, they promote generation of electricity mainly from utility-scale solar or wind installations. As I have written before, solar and wind generation cannot respond to demand and are ultimately very unreliable and very expensive for ratepayers. Solar and wind would not exist without mandates and subsidies.

(See Vote NO on Arizona proposition 127 the renewable energy mandate and the references in that article.)

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has produced five major reports none of which contain any credible proof that carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of global warming. In the third report, the IPCC admits: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Following are some of the most recent manifestations of climate madness. We start with California climate craziness.

Climate Activists Want Gov. Brown To Shut Down Fossil Fuel Production In Calif.

By John Glennon

On the heels of Judge William Alsup’s decision to dismiss San Francisco’s and Oakland’s climate change lawsuits, local California officials are turning to new symbolic tactics, including pressuring Governor Jerry Brown ahead of his Global Climate Action Summit.

A group of 150 local elected officials sent an open letter to Governor Jerry Brown last week to chastise him for not completely shutting down fossil-fuel production in the state.

In the letter, the local officials demanded that Governor Brown pursue a meaty list of harmful and unrealistic policies:

“Recognizing that we are in a climate emergency, as you have rightly done, and given the grave public health and environmental justice consequences of fossil fuel production in California, we respectfully urge you to make a new statewide commitment and lay out a plan for California to achieve the following:

“End the issuance of permits for new fossil fuel projects, including permits for new oil and gas wells, infrastructure for fossil fuels, and petrochemical projects in California.

“Design a swift, managed decline of all fossil fuel production, starting with a 2,500-foot human health buffer zone around all occupied structures, public parks, and farms to protect public health and vulnerable communities.

“Commit the state to 100% clean, renewable energy, starting with significant investments in disadvantaged communities and areas that are already suffering the most from the negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction.” Read more Update: By a vote of 44 to 33, lawmakers in the California State Assembly passed SB 100, a bill that calls for the state to transition to emissions-free electricity production in less than three decades. Under the guidelines of the legislation, California must obtain 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. The state’s electricity generation must be completely carbon free by 2045. The bill still needs to pass the CA senate. (Source)

 

Analysis: California’s Solar Panel Mandate Lowers CO2 Emissions by 0.32%

By Elizabeth Harrington

California will mandate solar panels on new homes out of concern for climate change, a policy that will raise prices in the most expensive home market in the country and does little to decrease the state’s carbon footprint. MIT reports: “California estimates that the new rule will cut emissions by 1.4 million metric tons over three years, which is a small fraction of the 440 million tons the state generated in 2015.” Emissions would be reduced by 0.32 percent. Read more

 

Utility blaming climate change, not its fallen power lines, for California wildfires

By Thomas Lifson

My cable news viewing is frequently interrupted by commercials instructing Northern Californians that climate change is responsible for the state’s current ordeal with multiple large wildfires. This is a contemptible attempt by utilities to evade responsibility for the damages caused by their power lines located near combustible forests (made much more combustible by policies preventing harvesting “old growth” and clearing deadwood). Read more

 

California and the L. A. Times latest climate alarmist absurdities

by Larry Hamlin

The Times article fails to note the UN IPCC conclusions regarding the undisputed inadequacy of “climate models” which it described in its AR3 climate report as “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

The Times article provides speculative alarmist “model driven” assertions about future coastal sea level rise contained in the state’s report which it characterizes as “Until recently, scientists and state policymakers worked with a projection that sea level rise by the end of this century could amount to about 5.48 feet in California under the worst case scenario. But the latest reports and state policies are now accounting for the extreme possibility that sea level rise could exceed 9 feet.”

Of course as is always the case with these wild and absurd sea level rise claims actual California coastal sea level rise measured NOAA tide gauge data with records going back more than 100 years is completely ignored by the state and L. A. Times because it shows absolutely no coastal sea level rise acceleration occurring at the states coastal locations with sea level rise occurring at steady rates between about 3 to 8 inches per CENTURY. Read more

 

Other climate madness:

UN Appointed Climate Science Team Demands The End of Capitalism

by Eric Worrall

A team of scientists appointed by the United Nations has reported that a free market system cannot provide the economic transition required to defeat climate change. Read more

 

You can now bet for and against “global warming” with an online “climate bookie”

by Anthony Watts

Things just got stranger in the already strange world of global warming/climate change. You can now wager on it. Yes that’s right, you can put down money on temperature futures. An outfit called “PredictIt” is running a book on this question: “Will NASA find 2018’s global average temperature highest on record?” Read more

 

REPORT: How The Billion-Dollar-A-Year Climate Industry Weaponized State Attorneys General

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

A new report based on documents collected over two-and-a-half years through open records requests outlines an “elaborate campaign” by the “billion-dollar per year climate industry” to weaponize state attorneys general (AGs) in service of the global warming agenda.

That campaign culminated in what the report labels “law enforcement for hire” because it allows political donors to pay for state prosecutors “in the service of an ideological, left-wing, climate policy agenda.”

“It represents private interests commandeering the state’s police powers to target opponents of their policy agenda and to hijack the justice system as a way to overturn the democratic process’s rejection of a political agenda,” Competitive Enterprise senior fellow Chris Horner wrote in his report, a copy of which was given to The Daily Caller News Foundation. Read more

Somewhat related:

Smart meters: Data spy or key energy device

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has handed down a landmark ruling, stating that data collected by smart meters is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The court pointed out that the smart devices, in fact, collect information for a deeper insight which can be obtained by thermal imaging tech. Furthermore, the court held that residents have a reasonable expectation of privacy and government access of this data constitutes, in essence, a search.

Jamie Williams, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said: “The Seventh Circuit recognized that smart meters pose serious risks to the privacy of all of our homes, and that rotely applying analog-era case law to the digital age simply doesn’t work.”

This has shone the spotlight on whether or not smart meters can be used to spy on consumers. Through the collection of usage data at high frequencies (every five, 15 or 30 minutes), a clear picture can be garnered of activity occurring on the property.

Individual lifestyles can be examined, such as predicting daily routine, sleep patterns, meal times and periods away from the property. Read more

 

Previous climate madness articles:

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6

Climate Madness 7

Climate Madness 8

Climate Madness 9

Climate Madness 10

Climate Craziness, Politics, and Hypocrisy